New Competitor - Ample


#23

“Based on science, not dogma.” and “Ample does NOT … GMOs” Doh!


#24

I noticed their “exclusive IndieGogo discounted price” (or whatever they called it) is still more than twice what I pay for 2.0…


#25

So true… I find that most “natural” food enthusiasts (i.e. Soylent haters) have unacceptably circular and illogical arguments (WTH is an ancient grain?). If I had a chef in my kitchen who could make me a completely balanced traditional meal, with all of the required nutrients, macros, and tasted great, then for sure I would choose that meal. Since I live in reality and have better things to do with my time…

BTW, I’m an engineer, and had been dreaming of soylent (little s) long before RL. Looking forward to sleep in a bottle…


#26

RL should print the word ‘Natural’ on 2.0 bottles.


#27

The FDA just finished up an open comment period for using the term “natural” on food labeling.

There is so much back and forth on what should be considered “natural,” it would not behoove RL to label their product natural. Soylent may have an ingredient that may not be considered natural if the FDA decides to regulate the labeling.

For example, if a product contains GMO’s, it may not be considered natural depending on which way the FDA leans, if the FDA does in fact decided to regulate the “natural” term on food labeling.

Soylent does indeed contain GMO products.

https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FDA-2014-N-1207

https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2014-N-1207-0001


#28

Anti-GMO arguments contain huge amounts of derp. I once got into an argument with some granola-heads who were arguing that GMO rice with added Vitamin A to combat blindness in impoverished areas was terrible because “They just need to grow more leafy greens!” I repeatedly explained that they don’t have the means to do so, and was basically told it was preferable for children to go blind than eat GMO rice because Frankenfoods and stuff.


#29

I have stopped arguing with those people. Some people feel the need to scream or argue and not try to understand or listen - or in the least see the topic in the other person perspective. I don’t deal with the back and forth any more, especially on the internet.


#30

Children that can’t see themselves eating GMO foods.


#31

I see what you did there.


#32

How about the term ‘organic’ do you think RL can get away with using this term? Not trying to be snarky (or whatever they call it :slight_smile:) i am genuinely curious.


#33

I think RL should focus on the word “scientific”.


#34

Soylent isn’t “organic” in the marketing sense of the word.


#35

We won’t be using organic. We did spend money putting up billboards that said PRO-GMO.


#36

Correct me if i am wrong but I thought being organic meant being made without the use of pesticides, so even if soylent has pro-gmo stuff in it, if it was done without pesticides it could be organic, right?

Ah never mind i get it. :smile: Damn i am becoming like joey.


#37

Organic has a legal definition for foodstuffs.

There are also state standards which may apply teeth to the laws.


#38

First impressions are in.


#39

Very skeptical of this review:

One of my only complaints about Soylent was its weight. It arrives as a pre-mixed, bottled liquid, which is convenient if you’re hungry at home or at the office. But if you want to pack a Soylent for a hike or bring a six-pack with you to a family wedding, as I was forced to do after my injury, it’s a pain to carry. Plus, it tastes nasty when warm.

Ample, in its powdered, bottled form, is light and still extremely portable.

She doesn’t mention the powdered form of Soylent, that is, ya know, the original Soylent. Despite this, she is a self proclaimed soylent “fangirl.” I throw some in a Nalgene with a blender bottle ball and it shakes it all up quite easily.


#40

Yes, I noticed that. Also, 2.0 doesn’t taste nasty when not chilled, IMHO.


#41

I threw down $11 for the sample pack (one 400 cal bottle and one 600 cal bottle). I love my Soylent 2.0, but am not opposed to trying other stuff for variety’s sake.


#42

It really annoys me when someone who clearly doesn’t know anything about a science attempts to use it to sell their product to those who don’t know better. I’m not sure if the team actually believe the rubbish they’re spouting about GMOs and “natural” ingredients, or if they’re just using it as a marketing ploy to make a quick dollar, but it really gets to me.

Nowhere on their entire website have they listed a nutritional label that displays more than the macros, vitamins A & C, iron and calcium, so there’s no way of knowing for sure that this steaming pile of rubbish is even nutritionally complete.

With the current information available, there isn’t a hope in hell I’d even take a free sample of this, let alone fork out the ridiculous per meal cost they’re expecting, and I’m frankly amazed so many others have already. Perhaps I’m missing something but all this product seems to offer is big claims hidden behind pseudo-science. Anyone feel free to correct me if they think I’m wrong.