Glycemic Index of Soylent 1.5


#1

Is there any info on the glycemix index of Soylent 1.5 (And perhaps earlier versions too)? The addition of trehalose (med/med-high glycemix index at 67) made me wonder about it.

I’m guessing the GI of 1.5 has increased :open_mouth:


#2

I second this question. Don’t particularly want the glycemic index going up.

The Soylent And Blood Sugar section of the official FAQ says “We are currently working on determining Soylent 1.4’s Glycemic Index.” Obviously that never happened while Soylent 1.4 still was commercially available.

Maybe @conor can let us know if we’ll get to find out for 1.5?


#3

Talked with the dev team it has been sent out for GI testing and we are awaiting results.


#4

Thanks, Conor. Please let us know when the info is available!


#5

I have flagged this post and will return with results.


#6

Umm…shouldn’t this have been tested BEFORE shipping 1.5 to customers?

That’s kind of worrisome.


#7

I am not sure it is worrisome, but it seems like they would have tested it before now on one of the versions. (Have they actually done so and I missed it?)

Some articles/pieces have specifically pointed out the danger of glycemic spikes and long term use causing hypoglycemia from the use of powdered foods, due to more rapid absorption.

From the article:

Powdered food – like Soylent – is more readily absorbed by the body, producing a greater glycemic response. In other words, the body’s glucose levels rise much faster. As such, a diet of predominantly soft food has been shown to lead to type 2 diabetes in mice. A new study published in this month’s edition of Life Sciences corroborated that finding. Researchers at Tohoku University in Japan fed mice the same food in both soft and powdered form for 17 weeks. At the end of the study, mice on the powdered diet had higher blood glucose levels, lower serum insulin (both signs of diabetes), and a diastolic blood pressure that was twice as high.

I would have thought they would have already tested on a previous version for that reason.


#8

3 weeks later now. Any word regarding those GI testing results?


#9

Sigh…at this point it seems clear GI testing is not a priority for RA (or perhaps embarrassing results are the problem). This is the first I remember seeing an explicit promise at Discourse that a particular version is getting testing. But at what point do we conclude they’re not doing what they say they are?

RA has been waiting 3 weeks for a result!? With a product that may only be sold for 2 more months 'till the next version, it starts to feel pointless. And as time passes a tiny feeling in me grows that they’re either not really doing testing, or don’t like the results.

Still, getting a GI result at this point would be helpful, if only to have some basis to estimate future versions.


#10

I’ll never understand why some of you guys immediately jump to speculating (absent proof) the most negative thing you can think of about the company and product.


#11

What are we to think when previous similar statements were made with results not released? This message,and variants of, have appeared on the Soylent FAQ since at least 1.4:

We are currently working on determining Soylent 1.5’s Glycemic Index.

That’s what…at least 6 months time (from development of 1.4 until today)? There’s no “jump to speculating”; this is long brewing.

On all other things RA has been worthy of much trust based on their open communications, in my opinion. But with Soylent being a liquid-diet that uses significant percentages of engineered sugars–two factors that could significantly impact GI issues-- the burden now begins to fall on RA to publish some concrete results, especially as they are now 5 versions in and a well-funded company.


#12

@Conor
(See previous several comments)


#13

In the reddit AMA, Rob implied the GI of 1.5 was lower than 1.4. I don’t recall them ever disclosing the GI of 1.4 let alone 1.5. Not sure why they’re keeping that from us.


#14

Sorry for all the delays. I’ll be uploading the whole PDF to the FAQ section.


#15

Thanks - appreciate it!


#16

No problem. :thumbsup:


#17

I don’t see it up here. Is it elsewhere? (Disregard is it’s simply not been posted yet.)


#18

We are actually going to make a longer post out of it, to distill the information for people.


#19

Conor, in the context of RA having never released GI information (after saying it’s being tested for some time, over multiple versions), and then saying RA will be uploading the whole PDF yesterday, this is the type of response that starts to make one wonder what’s really going on, in spite of the huge trust I have in RA.

I hope that the full post (or anything) is released soon, and I half expect it to be posted whilst I’m writing this. But I hope you can see how this sort of response from RA doesn’t look good.


#20

Can you point out the place RA said that it was going to upload the whole PDF “yesterday” – I can’t find it.