Soylent 2.0 "Review"


#1

I am not sure how you can review a product that isn’t out yet, but this guy made an attempt at it:


(Note: Extremely negative.)

He compares the macro content to livestock feed, strongly disagrees with many of the ingredients, etc. As a whole, he seems extremely ill-informed, imo.


Is Soylent 2.0 cutting corners in nutrient quality?
#2

Without even trying it, he somehow even knows how it tastes.

“It contains potentially harmful ingredients; it is nutritionally inadequate, it is bad for your gut, and it tastes like glue.”


#3

That’s impressive!

No, wait… the other thing. Retarded.


#4

On the bright side, he does concede… “it has not killed anyone yet…”

Good to know that a not yet released product isn’t already killing people, that might not bode to well if it were.


#5

I think this is proof of time traveling bloggers from the future trying to warn us about impending doom. I choose to ignore them.


#6

For all his extensive footnoted research on 2.0 he chose to use the 1.5 macro profile (45/40/15) rather than the readily available published 2.0 macro profile (33/47/20)

Pretty big difference (not that it would have made much impact on his review)


#7

Except that it would have ruined his comparison of the macros matching animal feed… almost makes you wonder if it was intentional.


#8

The day Rosa Labs recieved a $20m investment, all around the country hat sales increased.


#9

Oh, I’d thought this would be from someone who’d been to the tasting booth at the festival in San Francisco. Too bad.


#10

Though I like that the livestock feed he compares it to, in the screen cap, has “rice brain oil” in it. I didn’t even know rice had brains.


#11

I just left a comment at the bottom of his “review”. It is “awaiting moderation”…


#12

Wow. What the heck. lol. I wonder if he accidentally drank Elmer’s.


#13

And that was the last time your comment was ever seen.


#14

He definitely does not seem like someone who would allow opinions different from his own to be displayed in the comment section.

What a blowhard. He makes it seem like he has actually tried a product that is not available yet.


#15

So I just read about this “hyperloop” crap that some billionaire has been talking about. Pffffft. Right. The hyperloop won’t work because XYZ. You should believe me because I’m some blogger. Also I drew a diagram on a napkin and immediately debunked it. He might as well throw money in a volcano. The hyperloop will obviously kill you, I already imagined the scenario in my head. If that doesn’t convince you you’re clearly a moron.

[5 links to my other expert slam articles]
[A link to my patent-pending boner pills]


#16

Well the guy who wrote the “review” above is actually allowing the negative comments (Of which there are several) to post on his site, and even altered parts of his review due to the criticism, good on him.


#17

I will give him credit for fixing a few of the most glaring mistakes and allowing negative comments. Overall, he is still very misinformed, though.


#18

That’s an understatement.

The fat composition is only 20% of the macronutrient ratio, and water is not a macronutrient, therefore the first three ingredients (water, maltodextrin, and soy protein isolate) constitute, at a minimum, 95% of the product.

This is just wrong. I see what he tried to calculate (414 g - 21 g = 393 g / 414 g = 94.9%), but that simply isn’t correct, even assuming that 414 ml of Soylent 2.0 is exactly 414 g (it probably isn’t), he’s assuming all of the other non-fat ingredients together weigh less than zero grams. Hint: Judging from the 1.5 spreadsheet, they won’t! The vitamin and mineral blend alone will probably be like 5.6 g, plus the isomaltulose, rice starch, oat fiber, etc.

We don’t have the information to determine an accurate % yet; all he has determined is that Soylent 2.0 is primarily water. A beverage consisting of ≈80% water? Someone alert the media.

…also, your 45:40:15 macro ratio is incorrect. That is the ratio for 1.5. The ratio for 2.0 is 33:47:20


I made the correction in the post. Thanks!

Did he change it to 33:47:20 (AKA the correct value)? Of course not:

Soylent has a macronutrient ratio of 47:27:26 (carbohydrates:fat:protein) by weight

[emphasis mine]

Why by weight?

I have chosen to address these values by weight, rather than caloric energy because of the inequality of isocaloric values.

WTF?

He doesn’t like that fat has more calories per gram so he instead compares the macronutrients by weight, even though it is standard to compare macronutrients by % of total calories because that’s what we’re talking about.

I can’t say he’s deliberately trying to mislead anyone, because he would first have to understand what he is writing about.


#19

This guy reminds me of that Return of Kings article about Soylent a while back. shudders


#20

Well that’s depressing. I mean with all the criticisms, he does also seem to have a lot of worrying points based in fact as well. I really WANT to believe in Soylent but that has raised some concerns.