Macro profile evolution


#1

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…


#2

2.0: Water, maltodextrin, protein isolate, oil. That sure looks like a powdered oil version with the water pre-mixed. It’s curious that there isn’t a powdered 2.0.


#3

I don’t expect they’re done toying with ratios, so it’d be a bit early to say they’ve realized their optimal profile. They use a variety of oils, which would allow the maltodextrin to remain the highest volume ingredient.

[quote=“GregH, post:1, topic:22987”]
Are macro levels like 2.0 even possible in powdered form?[/quote]

Yes, any macro level is achievable, even keto, in powdered form.


#4

I think it’s a process; I’m assuming taste and texture were big concerns for 1.5, as well as macronutrient profiles, and simply which ingredients they could realistically source at the time.

I think it’s probably two things. One, in the semi-recent AMA they implied there was already a desire to increase the protein content, but that flavor/texture was an issue. The soy protein (and other additives?) seems to have solved that concern. Two, for a lot of people the protein in Soylent 1.5 was already adequate (or even beyond adequate), but increasing it further makes unmodified Soylent acceptable and more desirable for an even wider variety of people, especially because of the lower GI due (presumably) to the additional protein (and fats!). As long as people don’t have digestion issues, it’s a win-win for everybody.

That seems likely, but it’s possible the maltodextrin is desirable for a bit of fast(er?) energy, or perhaps it’s a taste/texture thing.

Like I said above, I think it’s a process they continue to try improving. I like 2.0’s macronutrient profile (in theory!) but I wouldn’t be surprised by changes in the future. Re: the possibility of a powdered form of 2.0, I honestly don’t know if that’s possible without oil bottles, but I hope it is.


#5

It has certainly been an odd evolution. And this isn’t even their final form(ula)!

I would love to sit down with Pi-Sunyer and pick his brain.


#6

Are you sure? Granted, I was only using Google, but I couldn’t seem to find a powered oil solution that didn’t add nearly as many carbs as it did fats. I assumed that was why 1.5 macros shifted to higher carbs.


#7

"In 1995, when he was appointed to chair the NIH panel that re-classified many Americans as “overweight,” he was also the Executive Director of the Weight Watchers Foundation. In 1997, he joined the Board of Directors of the Weight Watchers Foundation - one year prior to the publication of the NIH report he chaired that lowered the weights at which Americans were considered overweight.

Critics point to his further conflict of interest, noting that ‘he is also on the advisory board or is a paid consultant to several diet and pharmaceutical companies, including Wyeth-Ayerst labs (makers of the fen-phen diet drug that ended up causing heart valve damage), Knoll, Eli-Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, Hoffman-La Roche, Neurogen, and Weight Watchers International. Pi-Sunyer has been the highly paid principal investigator on recent clinical trials of the drug Rimonabant made by Sanofi-Aventis. Indeed, Pi-Sunyer has been named in a lawsuit against the drug company Wyeth-Ayerst because he agreed to have his name attributed to scientific articles about the cost of obesity that were actually written by Excerpta Medica, a medical consulting firm, and paid for by Wyeth-Ayerst.’"

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/F._Xavier_Pi-Sunyer

So would I.


#8

Ha! I meant in regards to nutrition and health. I’ll leave the politics to the chimpanzees*.


#9

Powdered oils come in a range of “loads”, ratio of oil:powder by weight, and can go up to around 80%. That 20% of non-oil can be both carb and protein, so the amount of carb calories can be quite low.


#10

Yes.

There are other options that can work as well, as @Syke pointed out.


#11

Ketosoy
Ketolent

Big down side to soylent is the high carb content. I used to think that was a cost saving measure but now ketosoy with subscription is the same price as soylent with or without sub and soylent is huge compared go ketosoy so…


#12

I’m still not sold on a diet high in saturated fats, but honestly I need to read more about it.