Simplest/Cheapest whole food soylent


I’m trying to get the cost of food to around 2$ a day. This is the goal

Right the meal consists of 1 cup of oats, 3/4 cup of peanuts and 3 tablespoons of hemp oil. This adds up to 1600 calories with a breakdown of 56% lipids/31% carbs and 11% protein. Obviously this meal lacks vitamins/minerals.

Now the question is: Will I be able to absorb the vitamins in pill form? (this is cheaper than produce- kale, swiss chard, dehydrated carrots, tomato powder, etc)

I plan on eating this once a day- in the morning then fasting till the next meal- in 24 hours. If anyone has any suggestions/replacements that will keep it around 2$ a day, I’d love to hear them!


I am sorry, but what you are making is a whole food liquid/smoothie diet. It contains all whole ingredients, each one already full of all macronutrients and nearly all micronutrients, in a forever varying amount. The amount varies with storage (natural food is volatile), season, manufacturer, genetic drift of the plant on plantation.
It is lacking the control that defines Soylent, where you are sure that you are consuming the exact same baseline nutrients each and every day, bringing both your daily and yearly average of nutrients to some maybe not optimal yet, but meticulously known value, which allows you, then, to experiment with changing some of the amounts or taking supplements.
I won’t go and call it gruel, in fact it might be quite tasty, and easily healthier on a yearly average than what a lot of people spending much more on their food are eating right now, but it is not a branch of Soylent.
I am here to pursue chemically perfect Soylent, but if for your diet you are willing to go the natural way, you should look into ordering a green powder that includes things like spirulina, tomato powder and carrot powder. These are sometimes cheaper by gram than each of the constituent powders, and you can also order it in bigger bulk because you will be consuming more from that bag per day than if you took a little from a number of bags.


Your recipe is a great base. Oats and peanuts are both amazing value for what you get from them, if you buy in bulk (which you should, eating them in that quantity).

To make it cheaper, consider alternatives to hemp oil. At least in the UK, it is really expensive compared to other oils. Why are you thinking of using Hemp specifically?


Our bodies are part of the system which is the world. Perhaps the amount of nutrients varies as well as the earth’s ability to supply it- have you considered that?


hemp oil: no reason :blush: just funzies.


We may have a language barrier here, but that is exactly what I want to exclude from my food. I want to eat not what an arbitrary organism was supplied with, but what my own body needs, for my own goals.


Good luck with simplest.
I think I won that competition with this recipe:


I know that’s the whole point of soylent, and that’s your choice, but most of my personal research indicates that soylent has everything you need to survive, and nothing you need to thrive.

Eating whole foods, especially vegetables and even more especially select vegetables with chemo-protective effects and practicing caloric restriction will extend your life far beyond what the average person eating soylent exclusively will experience.

The whole idea has become ridiculous, reductive, simplistic and uneducated to me the more I learn.

I stick around simply to comment on nutrition.

Also, if 30% reduction of calories leads to 30% reduction in food costs, then caloric restriction is likely to save as much money as soylent.


Just how are caloric restriction and soylent mutually exclusive…?

It would also result in a reduction in the cost of soylent, though admittedly not quite as big a difference. However, if you’re buying 30% less food, how are you then making sure you are getting enough micros? Were you consuming at least 143% of all your micros before? Or are you now consuming less than 100%?

Regardless, it’s still much better than a lot of people’s diets, such as the SAD. And DIY soylent is even better, as it’s tailored to the individual. If you think things from whole foods are essential (chemo-protective thingys, phytonutrients etc.), then by all means add those in. Nobody’s stopping you, and I highly doubt it’s impossible to make it tasty.


Wow. I may have thought those things from time to time but I wouldn’t have dared to write them in such a short, uncompromising statement!

Basically, I think the problem here is that some people, like Rob and qm3ster, think perfect nutrition is just a straightforward engineering problem. That kind of mind-set tends to be an incurable lifetime disorder, so we’re dealing with a permanent disconnect between the food engineers and those who feel there’s still far too much unknown about the intricacies of nutrition to justify regarding it as a simple engineering matter.

@qm3ster , can you say “intellectual arrogance”?


While I agree with this to an extent, I also think it’s a good thing that they’re approaching the problem from the other side compared to traditional nutrition. Their solution may not be perfect, but I think it can contribute a great deal to nutrition science, especially if it’s imperfect.


You are so right, Meta. Did I say it was a bad thing? I did not. :slight_smile:


Secretly, I don’t insist the current requirements are complete. everyone gasps

However, without undertaking this problem, not even the world’s brightest traditional nutritionists can say what is missing. Therefore, there is no time to lose, and we should start treating this as an iterative problem, consuming the current suggested nutrients and as little else as possible, so that we know that any problems that arise mean something is missing from our knowledge.

This is not an engineering problem of supplying the human metabolism, that we know “sooooo much” about, this is a functional analysis of what comes in and what comes out. (inb4 toilet humor, Soylent goes in, health data comes out)

That is how traditional nutrition has been gathering the information about why we need a certain nutrient, or whether a substance is an antinutrient, but what makes it inefficient is the lack of a baseline, “poor” food, that would still provide for all the known needs, allowing for extended testing.

Then there are various non-essential substances that some claim have great benefit to human vitality and longevity, such as the controversial antioxidants. We have identified such substances everywhere for while now, and a study with Soylent used as a baseline could finally say how we should feel about them. At least in a clean Soylent diet.


True, soylent can still be applied to this philosophy, but then it still lacks in chemoprotective phytochemicals capable of prolonging life.

I think soylent is much better than the average diet, but then I also think a carefully thought-out well planned calorie-restricted vegetable and fruit-rich diet is even better than soylent.

It’s just a personal choice, I’m willing to put in the extra effort for what I feel is a great benefit to my body. Soylent comes with a higher degree of ease.

And of course, I don’t mean to say those things are essential, just that they will offer you a healthier, longer life than adequate nutrition alone.


Yes there are certainly other reasons for creating and ingesting soylent. I just don’t think health and wellness is one of them.


I think a meticulous Soylent is a better starting point for developing a ridiculously good nutrition meal in the near future than a naturally-variable one. And for me it is definitely an immediate improvement with its Potassium, omega 3 and fiber, and lack of oxycholesterol and short sugars. Plus it makes calorie restriction easier, so I’ll have the added benefit of not having all the adiposity risks.


I do think it will benefit most people in its current form, but a well thought-out nutritionally variable whole foods meal at minimum will meet your nutritional needs, and in the best case, will positively affect your health beyond the benefits (if any) of simply meeting your RDAs.


My position is we can only make something “thought out” when we have the theory of it, or at least, unexplained, but clear, correlation. And as soon as we have at least that, we can already use a chemically pure compound.

For some reason, people still think that a food that contains more compounds immediately equals a better food, even voting with their money for mineral supplements that contain 2, 3, sometimes 4 salts of the same metal.

But let’s conduct a thought experiment: Here I have a dried spirulina powder, containing a mixture of 200 compound powders, none of them arsenic salts, and none of them a cyanide. I proceed to add a sensible amount of arsenic cyanide. The powder now contains 201 compounds. Does this mean it is now healthier, and I am entitled to look down at all the plebs that use an inferior spirulina with only 200 compounds?


Hahaha, good point. Most people that take my approach do fall into those traps. The “more is better no matter what it is” trap. Good examples are antioxidants and trace minerals.

I definitely agree with you that that is a mistake and generally leads to more harm than good. In my case I combine foods which through research are suggested to have seriously beneficial effects when consumed regularly.

It just happens that when I put these meals together, they almost always meet my nutritional requirements long before exceeding my caloric requirements.

For instance, soylent will have the “optimum” amount of methionine. Methionine is an essential amino acid yet methionine restriction is associated with an increased lifespan. It’s likely even just through methionine restriction that I will live longer than someone consuming soylent.


If that’s the case, it’s not the “optimum” amount then, is it? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: