My intent here is more meta than critical… I’m interested in the thought processes behind the various macronutrient profiles as compared to a debate about what how much of this or that is optimal.
Some of us had been asking for a higher lipid percentage for a while and though 1.4 was a big step up from 1.3, it seemed 1.5 was a small step back before leaping to the 2.0 level. Perhaps that was seen as a compromise on behalf of taste/texture in 1.5?
The ever shrinking protein content had been a concern for many although there were always those who claimed the 1.5 content was sufficient. Why the sudden leap up in 2.0? Maybe the higher cost is masked by the 2.0 total cost?
The fiber is being increased very slightly from 1.5 to 2.0 (but not as high as 1.4)
The carb percentage is way down (from 45% in 1.5 to 33% in 2.0) yet maltodextrin is still the first ingredient. I would think that compared to the powdered fats in 1.5, the liquid 2.0 would more readily accommodate more lipids and less maltodextrin. How much less, I don’t know.
If 2.0 is RL’s realization of an optimal macro profile, why did it seem that 1.5 made several (small) steps in the wrong direction? Was it just focusing on taste/texture? Are macro levels like 2.0 even possible in powdered form? Curious…