I’ve read similar American studies saying the same thing. The higher protein lowers lean tissue loss and shifts the percentage of weight loss toward fat. The focus of the studies was the protein content not the fat content. They typically try to keep either the fat or carb amount fixed. In the case of the study you are referencing they kept the carbs fixed and traded calories between protein and fat. So the low fat content is a red herring.
it’s in initiative by the CSIRO in effort to curb growing obesity issues. It is not their primary mission, nor is it what the government funding is intended for.
In terms of dietary guidelines, is a European or American born human diet bad for an Australian born human ? no. same goes the other way.
Do they define what “high protein” means (like how many grams per kg of body weight)? It looks like they’re selling a product, as @geneven noted, not spreading public health information. Compare to, for example, pretty much anything on a *.gov website (maybe this is a cultural/political difference between Australia and the US?). As noted elsewhere, 0.66-0.8 g/kg/day for protein are commonly accepted figures. Did they derive a higher figure? If someone wants to spend $149 to find out, be my guest. I suspect even after spending that money you won’t receive access to their scientific research or anything beyond what the site says: “CUSTOMISED MEAL & EXERCISE PLANS.” I’m sure they will be recommending exact quantities of particular whole foods, not sharing macronutrient ratios so you can make a DIY soylent blend. Although I suppose you could work backwards from the foods they recommend to derive their macronutrient ratio.
I also don’t see where they say it’s a low-fat diet. It says a high-protein, low-GI diet. As far as I know, a high-fat diet can easily be low-GI. Without quantifying what they mean it hardly seems like information the public can act on (without spending $149 for a twelve-week “membership” and and then $19.95 each month thereafter).
A lot of what I’ve seen from the weight loss angle on this board and a brief look over on the reddit I’ve noticed a decent number of the people are overweight or obese with diets consisting of mostly fast food and other poor choices. Switching to a definitive 2000 calories a day through Soylent would help with weight loss just from a calorie limiting and consistency standpoint. Going from their, I dunno guessing like what, 4000 calories a day? Maybe more? To 2000 calories then you’re definitely going to lose weight. But for athletes it’s a totally different beast with different nutritional needs. Personally I work out regularly and started using Soylent for consistent calorie measurements without sacrificing nutrition. I’ve tried eating healthy before but never knew if the calories were ever correct. Too many variables. This way I can be more certain it’s consistent. Additional protein and other supplements are added as needed. I feel athletes using Soylent to aid them are generally well informed enough of what their body should need… generally.
During weight loss and athletic training you protein requirements can double. Assuming you are an already slim adult sedentary male looking to maintain your weight on average you need 56g of protein. So if you are training you could need 112g. If you are over weight your starting protein requirement will be higher and could double during weight loss. So the 80g is more than fine for sedentary people but it suboptimal for weight loss or athletic training.
Yes and yes
You missed the beginning of my post.
The protein content of 1.4 and 1.5 is inadequate for weight loss or athletes.
No you shouldn’t.
If you go by the information in the article (which I feel is a very good article), then there is NO correct macro ration for protein.
Rather, you should determine the correct amount of protein for your body weight and then fill in the rest of your diet with calories. If you’re dieting to lose fat while doing a sedentary job versus doing intense training while working at strenuous labor, you’ll have wildly different calorie needs, and wildly different macro ratios, but perhaps the exact same protein requirement.
Because the overwhelming majority of Australia’s actual high-fat diets are profoundly unhealthy diets full of unhealthy fats as well as other unhealthy substances. It’s also very hard to eat a high-fat diet and still get all your nutritional needs met. So it’s easy to dismiss the category… But that’s not the same as saying any and every diet that is high in fat will necessarily be bad.
In general, I find that athletes are very comfortable using protein powder or other meals to augment their protein intake… and I expect that athletes will comfortably do the same while eating Soylent as their primary food. Frankly, adding your protein shake to your meal shake is more convenient than the alternative of eating normal food AND mixing up protein shakes, which is common for many athletes.
This is an intersting study.
Conclusions: An increase in dietary protein from 15% to 30% of energy at a constant carbohydrate intake produces a sustained decrease in ad libitum caloric intake that may be mediated by increased central nervous system leptin sensitivity and results in significant weight loss.
Doesn’t not necessarily in danger mean the same thing as may be in danger?
No. It means not in danger. “Not necessarily safe” would mean “may be in danger”.
Somehow I still don’t think I’m explaining myself clearly.
Australian’s in general are overweight and the CSIRO has promoted a High Protein diet is good for on-going weight control and general health.
The Soylent 1.0 macros aligned into that general health advice. The direction of Soylent 1.5 does not.
I just don’t understand a diet which is 40% canola/sunflower oils. The old 1.0 macros made a lot more sense.
The reduced carbs with increased fats is sort of Paleo?
The rice protein in Soylent is probably more expensive than the other macros. I’m not saying that’s why they lowered it, but they do factor in costs to some of their ingredient decisions. I’ve been vocal about being against that, but I seem to be in the minority on that one. (I’m willing to pay more for higher quality, more bioavailable ingredients)
You’re not alone on that one. I would be saddened to see the recipe downgraded in favor of price.
When multiple world organisations say fat shouldnt exceed 35% (all kind of fats, including mono) then its safe to stick to 35%.
40% fat is unnecessary. But did they do it to decrease bad cholesterol?, then they could raise salt instead.
Are they doing this to make soylent heart healthy? (Then they should add EPA then) It works against the omega 6 linoleic acid in soylent from getting converted into the heart dangerous arachadonic acid. And EPA also converts into DHA… that also raises good cholesterol (granted there is already DHA in it) but a little more EPA wont do any harm. As EPA competes against pro-inflammatory (from a heart point of view) prostraglandins, interluekines and cytokines arising from the metabolisation of omega 6 linoleic acid present in soylent.
And they should also lower the amount of choline:
Oral supplementation with phosphatidylcholine (250 mg of total choline from food plus 250 mg of supplemental phosphatidylcholine) has been found to result in detectable concentrations of trimethylamine and trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO) in the blood (23). The intestinal microbiota is directly implicated in the generation of trimethylamine from dietary choline, phosphatidylcholine, and carnitine. Trimethylamine is subsequently converted into TMAO by flavin-containing monooxygenases in the liver. The prospective study that followed 4,007 individuals,with or without cardiovascular disease (CVD) for a three-year period found baseline concentrations of circulating TMAO to be positively correlated with incidence of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke − described as major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (23). In the same cohort, MACE risk was found to be about 30% higher in individuals in the highest vs. lowest quartile of choline or betaine plasma concentrations (82). However, depending on gut microbiota composition, the risk of having an adverse cardiovascular event may be lower in individuals with low vs. high circulating TMAO even though choline and/or betaine concentrations in the blood are elevated (82).
I dont think they skimped on protein for the money. ( But since its a business and in business especially in a small start up, sometimes financial considerations also sadly play an unavoidable part when creating a product, its understandable) so if (a big if) money is the reason for low protein levels, dumping the extra choline will also save them money.
I definitely agree the choline levels seem high. I think people elsewhere have brought it up but it’s something that doesn’t get addressed nearly enough
Yes, exactly! I agree. Athletes research into and tend to know what they’re doing and know how to get the best results. They’d do the same with Soylent. The uneducated jumping into exercise programs willynilly and using Soylent as an expected miracle food is dangerous. But the same can be said of any supposedly healthy food. Usually labeled as fad diets and such, right?
Isn’t that one of Soylent’s goals to make a nutritional food substance that’s super cheap and healthy? Plus as a business it won’t be long before ingredients are switched with cheaper and less effective alternatives. Especially with a product like Soylent that is upfront and accepted as ever changing. I can see a future where Rosa Labs are bought out and everything is switched to be as cheap and efficient as possible, which isn’t always a good.
Canola oil, 40%, cheap
Protein, 15%, expensive
Coincidence? I think not.
It’s my understanding that it’s the phosphatidylcholine in the lecithin that can potentially cause TAMO not the choline bitrate. If that’s the case you should be advocating for less or different lecithin not less choline.
They set that upper value to keep fats in balance with the other macros (it’s fairly close to 1/3) and to ensure that skimping on the other macros doesn’t cause a deficiency, which is not an issue with Soylent, not because it becomes unhealthy after that point. If it was truly dangerous to get more than 35% of your calories from fat the ketogenic people would be keeling over by the thousands.
How does increased salt lower bad cholesterol?
EPA unfortunately won’t survive the powdering process.
Unless you weight more than 220lbs 80g of protein everyday is hardly skimping. They claim they lowered the protein to help eliminate the death farts previous version caused.