How much EPA and DHA in soylent 2.0?

10-20% is a significant amount; it’s ten to twenty per cent.

The question is how much EPA we need, how much EPA is ideal, and how much ALA we’re consuming that can be converted. (After all, 10-20% of what?)

The research goes on.

Meanwhile, fish oil is easy and cheap for me to take, the current evidence is pretty favorable, and the risks and costs are low. There’s not much oxidation inside of gel caps, and I keep the bottles sealed. I’ll just keep taking the fish oil.

Which brand of fish oil do you take, @MentalNomad ?

I had heard that some brands were better than others for things like heavy metals.

One more thing. I have another theory as to why fish oil pills arent helping outcomes. Omega 3’s (all three of them ) are very susceptible to oxidation when exposed to heat and light… more than sat fat and mono are and probably more than even omega 6. Fish oil pills are often exposed to these in factories and stores/ homes. And when they oxidise their ‘health benefits’ reduce.

Yea you have to look for high quality fish oil pills. Look for “pharmaceutical grade” or ask the pharmacist for the highest quality brands they recommend.

If you get disgusting fishy burps then certainly the oil has gone rancid and you should throw it out and get a better one.


My intention was not to talk people out of taking fish oil pills. I was responding to a link in the nyt article by greg h, that seem to suggest fish oil pills dont prevent/reduce cardiac disease or stroke incidence.

Taking fish oil pills is definitely helpful.

But where did you get that 10-20% conversion rate, from?

I’m just making round numbers. The point is that these numbers are not necessarily that small; a percentage conversion rate is only meaningful in context of the quantity in the centage.

And I didn’t mean to imply any commentary about your statement other than what I just said above.

This is something I haven’t paid much attention to, but I probably should. I currently have two sources: I buy LEF’s Mega EPA/DHA when it’s on sale, otherwise I buy Costco Kirkland Signature Fish Oil. The costs are very, very clost when you calculate cost per unit of EPA/DHA. (You need 5 of the Kirkland “1000 mg of fish oil” gelcaps to get 1250 mg of EPA+DHA, whereas 2 of the LEF “1000 mg of fish oil” gelcaps give you 1200 mg of EPA+DHA.)

But isnt it more helpful to take EPA directly if we want EPA than take ALA when only 20% of it or even as low as 6% is converted to EPA.

Someone on reddit said they got an email from Soylent answering this question with: no EPA or DHA at all in S 2.0, only ALA.


That’s a little unexpected. Any update on the spreadsheet release @Conor for 2.0?

1 Like

We are working on it. :smile:


I would like to correct the above statement of mine. DHA too helps the heart by raising good cholesterol. Having said this i still dont think DHA alone is enough to make soylent cardio-protective. Soylent needs EPA to protect the heart against omega 6 metabolite Arachidonic acid.

And also possibly more salt, as the amount of DHA is possibly too less to compensate for lowered good cholesterol resulting due to low salt.

Do you have a source for that?


I posted them earlier, google image search about the metabolism of EPA. And regarding salt,

1 Like

In this thread or elsewhere? I’m scrolling up and not seeing any source. The Google image search turned up a bunch of charts. Any one image in particular? I didn’t see anything obviously related to your statement:

Which is what I was referring to.

Let me quote from the full text:

Long-term restriction of dietary sodium intake has a clinically relevant impact on cardiovascular disease, with reduction in risk being estimated to amount to up to 25% [9], as reinforced recently [28]. We demonstrated that HDL-C decreased by 0.05 mmol/l in response to sodium restriction. A meta-analysis of prospective observational studies has demonstrated that mortality from ischemic heart disease is 33% higher for each 0.33 mmol/l lower HDL-C [29]. Extrapolating these data [29] to the present findings and assuming that the decrease in HDL-C is sustained with long-term sodium restriction could translate into a modest 5% increase in risk, which seems unlikely to outweigh the risk reduction attributable to long-term low sodium intake.

Long-term restriction of sodium reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease by up to 25%. The decreased HDL may increase risk by 5%, assuming the short-term decrease holds true over time (it was only a one-week study). Their results are also possibly only applicable to healthy young men, since as they say:

Obviously, the exclusion criteria applied make that our current findings do not necessarily hold true for hypertensive, overweight or diabetic populations and for women.

Soylent 1.5/2.0 are also not in the low range of sodium intake in that study, except at low caloric intakes (unlikely in healthy young men, but that data isn’t available since they weren’t on controlled diets), and would usually fall between the low and high ranges. The high sodium group (228 ± 77 mmol) should be 5,244 ± 1,771 mg at 23 mg per mmol, while the low sodium group (36 ± 27 mmol) is 828 ± 621 mg. Even at 2000 calories, Soylent 2.0 is already at 1500 mg (above the low range, which caps out at 1449 mg). At 3000 calories, 2.0 is up to 2250 mg. This is assuming 100% Soylent 2.0, since once we add other foods sodium intake becomes an unknown quantity. Soylent 1.5 is similar: 1520 mg per 2000 calories, 2280 mg per 3000 calories.


I didnt post it in this thread. You can find it in one of those charts.

That long term restriction was in reference to the high sodium group 228 mmol (around 5000 mg of sodium), reduction of sodium in these groups was found to reduce the risk by upto 25%. I was not asking to raise it that level. 2300 mg is the upper most recommended limit of sodium intake. Infact that statement the 25% risk reduction statement links to this study And this study was done on prehypertensive patients.

Although sodium in soylent is not in the low sodium intake according to that study, its actually closer to the low intake range than to the higher range… at 2000 calories…the upper limit (give or take ) of soylent calories most people will consume. Infact more people will more likely consume even lesser than 2000, than say 3000 or 4000 calories.

1 Like

If you don’t have a source other than “find it yourself,” that’s the same as not having a source. I already searched with Google and Google Scholar and found nothing relevant. Google Image searching that phrase is getting me a ton of images that (as far as I can tell) are unrelated to your original statement.

Are we reading the same study? :confused: The study you linked had no long-term data. It was a single week long study.

Yeah, that was why they linked to it. If there is a large benefit to restricting sodium, and a small drawback, the large benefit essentially overrides the small drawback.

It’s closer, sure, but it’s not within the range, which makes the data close to applicable at best (which is within the range of “not applicable,” at least to me). If you say 2000 calories of Soylent is the upper limit of what most people will consume, you then introduce an unknown variable of anyone on a higher calorie diet filling in with other foods, which may contain any amount of sodium, which means we can’t draw any conclusions. Not that it particularly matters, in light of their findings.


Don’t take fish oil. It is not reliable as fish oil is mostly contaminated with heavy metals. The study below explains that fish oil cannot be relied on as an omega 3 supplement due to heavy metal contamination.

Soylent really should have algae based EPA and DHA. If it does not, just buy some off iHerb.

1 Like

The ‘‘large benefit’’ of sodium reduction is for pre-hypertensive patients not on normal people.

I posted it in one of my older threads (dont automatically assume again that i said i posted on this thread), i will post it again. Surprised that you didnt find it in image search( it took just a few seconds for me to find it), given that you seem to have no problem digging deep to find faults in my arguments. Here it is:

Can you rephrase this?


In that particular study, yes. It was my understanding that high sodium consumption would more or less invariably increase blood pressure. Since hypertension is (chronic) high blood pressure, in the long-term a high sodium diet will lead to hypertension. I can try to find a study with patients who have normal blood pressure, but it seems that the majority of the studies are on the effect of sodium modulation on prehypertensive or hypertensive individuals. Which kind of makes sense. Do you agree that long-term high sodium consumption will increase blood pressure, leading to hypertension? I thought that was a given, but maybe I’m wrong.

Thanks, I think I saw that among the other images. You do realize the source of that image is a page selling supplements, right? At any rate, I still don’t understand how that relates to your original claim:

I’ve tried reading about arachidonic acid, but I haven’t found any information that the heart needs to be “protected” from it by EPA or anything else. Honestly a lot of what I’ve read on Google scholar is well above my head, but the basics seem to be that arachidonic acid is not necessarily inflammatory. From Wikipedia, which is written at a much lower level:

Is there something I’m missing? Another thing to keep in mind: I’m not sure how to derive the arachidonic acid content of Soylent, or rather I haven’t even tried. Is it higher or lower than a normal diet?

I still think it does not matter in particular, but I will try to simplify it. If a study shows X decreases by an average of 5% at Y values of 10-20 and X increases by 50% at Y values of 30-50, that study does not contain any information about Y values between 20 and 30, because those values weren’t in the study. Obviously some things have linear or otherwise predictable responses, and it’s perhaps possible to extrapolate some theoretical value from the data points in the study, but not everything is so simple.

High sodium raises the risk of hypertension, but thats more likely above 2300 mg the recommended intake. I was not arguing for sodium above that.

Just because the page selling supplements links to it, doesnt necessarily mean they (those supplement guys) created that image. That image is found on other sites too. You can find it, other wise i will provide more links to that image.

And i will get back to you on AA as soon as i can. I am tied up at the moment.

1 Like

It sounds like you’re having way more fun than I am. :innocent: