Powder 1.7 Wishlist

I wish for better or neutral taste, no aftertaste, and large tubs. They aren’t going to offer powder in a waterless bottle so I will pack my own in empty 2.0 bottles. This should work well since it mixes so much easier now.


2nd that, stop trying to achieve 2.0 taste and just make it neutral, some like 2.0, others moved on to different brands because they can’t stand it. Leave out all the flavoring agents, I rather taste the ingredients than the sweetish, fake-ish overlaid flavor.

  1. Find out what’s making the starchy taste that’s been there since 1.4, and get rid of it. I’ll look back over the spreadsheets next week and try to figure it out too.

  2. Lower the cost to something cheap for a lower middle class family of 4 in the US. The USDA says that’s about $600 a month for the family. 3 minutes of my conservative not-so-reliable pen-on-napkin math says that’s about $1.30/400kcal (if the wife and children are averaging closer to 1500kcal/day, with the adult male at 2000kcal/day). So you’re getting close.

  3. Protein that’s not one of the most common allergens in existence. Not expecting this to be done within the next year, but I figured I’d say it to show that it’s wanted.

  4. Nootropic versions, backed up by good data made easily accessible. Probably not gonna happen, but this is a wishlist.


On 4, I prefer to add my own stack. It’s also the reason I don’t want a coffee Soylent (not to mention disliking the taste). I prefer to pop a caffeine + theanine pill or add as powder to Soylent.


I’d like to see a separate product with “everything you need and a few things you don’t”.

I see caffeine suggested a lot. I’d prefer theacrine since it doesn’t appear to have a tolerance build up but if it must be caffeine, it would be nice to see it paired with theanine and tyrosine.

Perhaps we could have double or triple the vitamin D too.


Yes, it is way too low on vitamin D. Though that’s easy to supplement.


$1.54 per 400 kcal is pretty low cost already. That is $6.16 per day for 1600 kcal and $7.70 per day for 2000 kcal. If a person eats 3 meals in a normal day that is only $2.15 and $2.57 per meal. I can not think of any way to put together a meal at that low of a cost that meets every nutrition guideline. The only way I see to get a meal to cost less then that is if you were making it for 100 people to eat in bulk. The price is definitely the cheapest of any meal that is pre-made that you can just eat immediately or heat and serve without any preparation.

1 Like

I agree it’s pretty cheap, generally speaking. The only reason I want it to be cheaper is to attract the large low-middle class families like mine that buy ingredients like chicken and rice in bulk and make food at home. No doubt Soylent is already a better value than chicken and rice, but that doesn’t matter if you simply don’t have the money to step up to it.

Besides, we’re consumers. It could be $0.50 a meal and I’d still want it to be cheaper (provided quality stays the same) so I could spend more money elsewhere. Hopefully that explanation makes sense, if it doesn’t we could resurrect one of the old pricing threads or just PM so we don’t clog this thread up.


I do it everyday with my DIY.


It would be really nice if they could get it approved in each of the different states as a Food for so people could use food stamps for it. I am not sure why they can not actually do this.

If they could get the price cheap enough then states could even start giving it away as meal replacements for instead of paying people with food stamps.

It could also be given away at the missions for homeless people. I am sure they would not like having it every time, but it is fully nutritious and a complete meal replacement (most likely better then what they are already getting).

We could all give the homeless people begging for change a bottle, instead of cash. Those that are really in need of food and truly starving should appreciate it since it even stops the cravings for a while.

1 Like

I don’t think the problem is getting it approved “as a food” but rather that the retailer has to be approved to accept food stamps. Not a problem when your product is for sale at the local grocery store, as they’re obviously going to accept food stamps. More of a problem for online retailers. Take Amazon for example - I can buy pop-tarts at Amazon but I cannot use food stamps there to do it.

Soylent would qualify if you could find it at a retailer that accepts food stamps. See http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/eligibility.pdf


If Soylent nutrition is labeled as FOOD it should qualify. If Soylent is labeled as a Supplement, then it does not qualify.

I guess I can understand why regular chain stores may not want to take this sales risk in selling this product. If stores sold it at the same cost as the website then there savings would only be the amount saved in having it shipped by the truckload vs the cost of shipping the boxes individually. I am not sure how much of a full pallet of this stuff costs to ship vs shipping the individual boxes. The profit may not be enough for the store. Also, since every store in a chain would carry it that really cuts down the number of boxes sold per store.

I wonder if they have even considered selling it through Costco. There is enough Costco’s to get a good distribution network, but not too many that it would heavily dilute the number of cases sold per store. To make this an even better option, Costco could sell the Soylent Powder in a 4 Case Pack (28 Days), or a 12 Case Pack of 2.0 (28.8 Days). They do take food stamps.

Anyone know why Amazon only sells the Soylent liquid, and not the Powder Version?

RL doesn’t want to sell through retail. The closest they plan to come is vending machines. They also chose not to sell Powder on Amazon. Which is good, since they’d have to increase the price to do so (by reducing the discount). Also, I wanted Amazon but they are very inflexible on subscription shipping date. RL’s website is buggy but it’s the best option as of now.


Soylent is regulated as a food.


My only wish is lower price.


It is labeled as FOOD. It’s a different nutrition label for a supplement. The label for a supplement says “Supplement Facts” at top. The label for food says “Nutrition Facts”.

Did they every say why? I thought the idea was to sell product…seems counterproductive to me without an explanation.

Isn’t Amazon retail also?

I know many people who would like to try out the product, but they just do not “buy stuff online”.

The release notes mention components that cost less or were eliminated. But I’m not sure if other components cost more which offsets that savings.

They think it’s less efficient than direct-to-consumer. (Space, transportation, wide spread distribution, decentralization, spoilage, etc). Better end user experience too.

Amazon is still ecommerce.

The largest audience for this product has no problem buying online. The marginal cost for the number of people that would consume Soylent but won’t buy online is too high.

I can not think of any way to put together a meal at that low of a cost that meets every nutrition guideline.

http://i.imgur.com/Xe4QWU3.png (eating it twice a day)
Over the past week I put this together and have been eating it twice a day at 4$/day. I could even likely lower the cost a bit by replacing almonds with peanuts, but that’s half of the price for a virtually identical nutrient profile as Soylent. (Little high in protein, little low in E K and calcium). I just need to fiddle with it for a little bit longer to get those last few bits right.

The price is definitely the cheapest of any meal that is pre-made that you can just eat immediately or heat and serve without any preparation.

I’ll grant you you’re not likely to find anything easier to eat for the same nutrition except for other meal replacement shakes, but the official stuff is by no means the cheapest of this category.
See https://www.blendrunner.com/?sort-by=lowest-price