NY Times Article on sugar level of ensure, boost, etc


The New York Times has an article complaining about how much sugar is in the meal drinks used in hospitals: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/well/live/sugary-shakes-hospital-doctors-patients-nutrition-boost-ensure.html
Soylent is not mentioned, instead the author talks about how he talks to patients about having yogurt or kefir instead of the hospital meals. I’m tempted to email him and ask what he thinks of Soylent, it seems like it would be a much superior replacement for ensure and boost.


Soylent 1.8 and Soylent 1.9 Cocao both have about 15g of sugar, which is on par with both Ensure and Boost’s single serving. Before you cut my head off, I am a regular Soylent user, just thought you should all know what is actually in what you’re drinking.


However, most of that sugar is Isomaltulose which has a much better glycemic index than sugar and corn syrup.


In addition, comparing grams of sugar per serving in isolation is misleading if you are comparing a 200-240 calorie serving vs a 400 calorie serving. 15 g of sugar per 200 calories is equivalent to 30 g of sugar per 400 calories, and 15 g of sugar per 400 calories is 7.5 g of sugar per 200 calories.


They should start giving out Soylent in hospitals.


True, but, unfortunately, most people who pick up a bottle, especially at a new outlet like 7-11, probably never get past the nutrition label.

Also, I wonder if it is universally accepted that Isomaltulose is not bad for you or if that is just us Soylent fans that believe that.


There is a long article on Wikipedia about isomaltulose.

One statement is “A GI of 32 for isomaltulose was determined by the University of Sydney Glycaemic Index Research Service, which list isomaltulose in their searchable GI database.[15] The GI value of 32 compares with 67 for sucrose and 100 for glucose, which makes isomaltulose a very low-GI carbohydrate.”


That is good news. But I wasn’t questioning the glysemic index, just wondering whether the general public or those buying food for hospitals would simply base their decision on the nutritional label which states the product has sugar. And, if not, whether they can be convinced that even though the label says it has sugar, it is a good sugar.


Soylent is already popular in some circles, so I don’t think there is much sense in questioning whether it can be popular. Soylent doesn’t have to convince most people; it just has to convince some people to be wildly successful. Hospitals can, I hope, be trusted to listen to rational arguments, and the GI argument isn’t very complicated, even for doctors.


Sounds rational, but the fat is good fat argument didn’t work in Canada so makes me wonder whether the sugar is good sugar argument causes a similar problem with other decision makers.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m personally pro-Soylent. Just saying they have some hurdles, that’s all.


I fully agree with this statement <3