Please share your comments/concerns/questions regarding the Soylent Macronutrient Overview post here!
From the Ars Technica series on Soylent a month or two back:
The included amounts have some breathing room such that even 1/2-2/3 of consumption should be plenty. Just use your body’s built-in mechanisms for hunger and you should feel fine
Just to check, as the ingredients are finalized, is that still pretty accurate? As far as 1/2 a bag being just at the rough “low end” mark for keeping inside that breathing room, that is. I know 1200cal is pretty much an edge case, but it’s useful to have guide marks, haha.
Also, linking in a relevant post about rice protein being used (basically, “concern acknowledged, testing in place”)
Soylent Team - thanks for releasing the macronutrient overview. Like many soylent DIYers, I’ve been quite eager to see more about the (capital ‘S’) Soylent ingredients for awhile.
Do you have more details on the oat flour preparation? Specifically, are the oats soaked and cooked before milling? I’ve gone through over 20 pounds of oat powder in my soylent, and feel it has worked great for me. I know others (e.g. the author of the popular Bachelor Chow recipe) have complained about digestion issues from oat flour. I’m wondering if the differing reactions to oat flour is from differences in the preparation of where it is sourced from. Specifically, it seems like oat flour/powder providers differ in how much they soak/cook the oats first, and that perhaps it is the people who are eating less cooked oats that are having the problems.
Also, can you comment on the choice of fish oil with regards to fish smell? If I add over a gram of fish oil to my soylent, my burbs smell like fish for hours, and my girlfriend complains. Your recipe has over 2 grams per meal, so I assume you are buying a better kind of fish oil than me.
And finally, to everyone involved with Soylent - thank you, I really appreciate what you are doing.
I have been eagerly awaiting the Soylent and have been supporting your cause since the beginning. However, some new concerns have come up for myself, and maybe others. I recently read Grain Brain and have discovered the damaging affect of carbs to the brain and overall health. It has made me have second thoughts about drinking soylent, as the carb count is really high. Do you think that there could be a low carb, like 60 to 80 grams a day, version. Check out Dr. Perlmutters website to get a grasp of this if you have not already. http://www.drperlmutter.com/ Thanks.
Discussion on "Grain Brain", and related claims that all carbs are unhealthy
What’s the shelf life on the oils? Do they require refrigeration? And I second the question about oat flour - soaked and cooked before milling? Thanks
Thank you for all the information. I agree with @tdavis_2113 about the lower carb thing. There is a lot of research pointing to carbs being the largest contributor to heart disease. Beyond that, I look at the use of canola oil. This is a derivative of the rapeseed plant which is a plant that produces a highly toxic oil. Though it was naturally cultivated in the 70’s into “canola” and the erucic acid levels reduced to human consumable, the oil non-the-less contains erucic acid, an oil shown to cause heart problems. Also, over 25% of all canola harvests today are from GMO plants. I’m surprised you didn’t choose an oil like coconut, olive or sunflower which are less controversial and oils like coconut with MCFAs have a lot of healthy benefits.
Mr. Permutter may be right in that carbs are not essential. And for high GI carbs it is true, that they cause plentiful problems for brain performance, long term diabetes issues and are supporting obesity.
I still don’t get the point, why low GI carbs (as in Soylent) should be so bad. I respect Mr. Perlmutters science. Yet this Super-Hero-Attitude on his website raises doubts. If only that his promises are exaggerated.
@ Topic: Now are there 38g of fibers added, or do the fibers in oat flour etc. count up to 38g?
You guys should not take Mr, Perlmutters too seriously, he appears to be a quack.
Here are some links:
Being on the Dr. Oz show is not a resounding certificate of credibility.
In the paragraph beginning “Starches are long chains”, there is a missing “)”. I’m not sure where you meant to put it. Maybe the second “(” was meant to be a “-”?
The single most important metric of any food is the Glycemic Index indicating the tendency toward health or disease. The body is healthiest in a slightly alkaline environment; this means a low glycemic diet. Thank you Rob, et.al. for paying attention to this. A low GI Soylent will keep me coming back for a long time. ~Dennis
Huzzah! Thanks @JulioMiles.
This appears to be for Soylent 2200. Is each ingredient here for the macros just scaled down linearly for Soylent 1800?
Also, just in case anyone read this:
I have been googling around and several sites list maltodextrin with a GI of 105, higher than pure glucose. You also seem to have put a massive amount in. 132g/3meals is 43 grams of sugar per meal. That’s more than a can of regular coke with every meal!
Am I crazy, or is this a liquid candy bar, sugar-wise?!
Please tell me where I am wrong.
I’ve also found maltodextrin is commonly listed as 105-135 glycemic index. Could you clarify why you call it “rather low” in the blog update? Because 105 is higher than ice cream (57), Coca Cola (63), and a Snickers bar (51).
Do you have any research (Rob’s implant?) that negates the concerns with insulin spikes associated with maltodextrin? I.e.:
From what I’ve been reading on GI, it sounds like it gets offset by fiber, and is widely variable. It changes based on preparation, other foods eaten, and the individual.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/topics/glycemic-index has a whole section as to why its so variable and issues with GI. Other sites agree, but do not have it organized as well.
Yup - GI is simply a measure of the rate at which carbs get digested. If you drink pure glucose, it will get absorbed very quickly. If you drink pure glucose, with 50g of fiber (blech.) then it’s going to be absorbed much more slowly, and much less efficiently. Where you might get 100% of the first, you’d probably end up passing 30% or more with that much fiber.
It’s a matter of relative surface area - if the carbs are blocked by indigestible fiber, they don’t get exposed to the acids and enzymes, and just sit there. That’s why the stomach swishes everything around, to get a uniform distribution. Then it smears the goop all over your intestinal walls in order to maximize the surface area and nutrient absorption. GI is just an easy way of defining how hard it is for the carbs to get broken down and absorbed. For complex carbs and fats, it takes time to break them down from their long chain forms to their short and medium chain constituents.
One of the side effects of Soylent being liquid is optimal surface area. You’re going to get about as much as its possible to get of every nutrient provided, according to your own metabolism.
True but they’re referring strictly to the maltodextrin itself when they say its GI is “rather low.” That’s what seems unusual, since even with maltodextrin variations the normal GI is 105-136. It would be great to have an overall glycemic index for Soylent though, hopefully that will be something coming up in 2014.
"Preliminary tests by beta testers and founders abiding by WHO glycemic index testing guidelines have found the GI to be rather low. More formal testing is planned for early 2014"
They refer to the beta testers to find it rather low, which to me read as the whole of Soylent has a low GI. I think they put it under the maltodextrin section because GI seems to be used in reference to sugars/carbohydrates (maltodextrin), so it would make sense for them to make a GI reference there. Of course it would be nice to know for sure.
negligibly low levels of trans-saturated fats
@JulioMiles , of the 56g of canola oil, how much trans fat is present? This would be good to know. From my foray into canola resarch, a typical amount was .45 mg per gram, so for 56g of oil that would be 25.2mg of trans fat. Those numbers were an average from a 1994 study, which used oils analyzed in 1993, so my assumption is that canola oil these days would have much less trans fat content.
Even at that upper limit, it would represent a caloric intake of .2268 calories, which is .01134% of a 2000 calorie diet, far less than the limit of 1% of total caloric intake recommended by the WHO.
Anyhow, it’d be good to know the actual number or if “negligibly low” means so low that it’s not plausibly having an effect on the diet.
Thanks for the update!
That’s the correct reading of the post
That too is correct.