Soylent Recap 10/21


Off the cuff, I’d think one would want a single lower calorie mix and people who need more calories can grab a snack.

I’ll probably be changing my preferences to 18, especially since it won’t be my only source of nutrition either way.


That defeats, in my mind, the main purpose of Soylent: you don’t have to eat anything else if you don’t want to. As it is, I’m going to have to find a way to get an extra 1000-2000 calories, and that will be a whole extra meal or two, not a snack. It seems so trivial to me to include the vitamins and minerals in daily vitamin packs that could be added in separately. It would be about as difficult as making Top Ramen – or Top Ramen if you didn’t have to boil anything.


You need 3200-4200 calories per day? Are you some sort of bodybuilding triathelete?


Not really, but even if I was, I don’t see why that should be an illegitimate use case. Are you trying to say that Soylent should only be for skinny people who live a sedentary lifestyle? That seems odd, given that athletes and bodybuilders are a demographic more likely to consume something like Soylent.

In my case, I’m just tall and muscular and I’ve always had an unusually high metabolic rate even for my size. I work out for maybe 20 minutes a few times a week.

According to this calculator, if I were just to lie in bed all day I would burn up 2531.8 calories… so yeah, 2200 calories / day wouldn’t cut it even if I was bedridden.


I hope in future the company can better accommodate people with different needs. Nutrition isn’t one size fits all. But I don’t really see a good solution.


I do: keep the vitamin mix separate (or make it an option to do so) so people can measure out what is right for them. Not only would that solve the calorie issue, but if people want different micronutrients from the official blend they can substitute in whatever they want with ease (for example, if they are anemic or hemocromatosis, they would need more or less iron respectively).

The vitamin mix could come in little daily packets (similar to what you find in Top Ramen). For measuring out the mixture for the proper amount of calories, the order could include a measuring cup with markings for the amount of calories, or better yet, the markings could be on the pitcher itself.

And just like that, we have a one-size-fits-all solution, for only a miniscule sacrifice in convenience, a level of convenience that no one was even expecting in the first place. And if it becomes a separate option, there’s no sacrifice in convenience at all for those who actually want exactly 1800 or 2200 calories.

I mean, come on, they’ve been bending over backwards to accomodate vegans who make up 5% of the customer base, going to far as to exclude fish oil from their orders. I suspect that people who want a calorie amount other than 1800 or 2200 are a much larger group than the vegans, so I don’t think it is unreasonable to ask for at least the same level of consideration.


Lets not turn this into another anti-vegan thread, I’m already trying to extricate myself from one of those. Soylent is not being held to ransom by vegans, the release is slated for December and whatever changes they make to the recipe aren’t the fault of any group. What’s important is cost and the available quantities of ingredients, it might just turn out that plant based alternatives are cheaper or available in better quantities.

And lets not forget that 1800 and 2200 calorie mixes are just the day 1 release options, in the months ahead I’m sure higher calorie blends will be released to accommodate the people with higher needs.

So it’s not unreasonable to want consideration for high caloric needs but it is unreasonable to feel slighted because you think another group has been treated preferentially when they haven’t.


I’m not well informed on the DIY scene or nutrition generally, so this is probably a really dumb question, but are the micronutrients separable in the mix-and-match way you envision, and do people generally (that is, apart from conditions like anemia etc or along sex lines) have different micronutrient needs?


I think you are confused. I have nothing against vegans nor do I feel slighted. In fact, I think it is wonderful that vegans are being accomodated for their needs. And I would like to continue in that vein and point out a wonderful opportunity to accomodate a much larger group of people for roughly the same amount of effort.


Great news! My soylent is unisex too, and it was really easy to do. I’ll be getting soylent 1800 for sure.

According to the Techcrunch article, version 1.0 has been reached. When are we going to see the nutrient content breakdown? Have I missed something @JulioMiles?


I’ve just seen so many people whinge about vegans holding up the works and how Soylent should just tell vegans to bugger off because there’s only 3% of the US of them which is ridiculous logic in so many ways.
Sorry if I included you unfairly with them :stuck_out_tongue:


@Muhd - I understand what you’re saying but perhaps the vitamins could just come in a pill form? Oh wait - people have been taking these pills for decades. My guess is that for folks with a higher caloric need, the extra vitamin dose won’t hurt you. Unless Solynet is flirting with the upper bounds for things like iron, then increasing the dose by ~30% per day shouldn’t hurt you.

In general, I think people are overthinking all this. My guess is that VERY FEW people on these forums are going to end up consuming Soylent for >2/3rds of their calories. Is this going to make us all unbalanced in our micro intake? Hardly…


“When are we going to see the nutrient content breakdown? Have I missed something @JulioMiles?”

That article said they were going to release the official ingredients in December if I remember correctly.


It’s looking like we’ll be signing the PO with RFI today (thursday), looking forward to having some items of significance to discuss in the recap this week. Next week we plan to post the final nutrient breakdown, ingredients list, etc.


That’s true because as it stands, they won’t be able to consume more than that.

And even if everyone wanted 2/3 of their calories to come from Soylent, that still doesn’t fix the problem. If the range for full calories goes from 2000-3000 then multiplying that by 2/3 doesn’t map neatly onto 1800 and 2200.

I’m surprised you can so blithely dismiss this problem given that it runs very counter to the reasons that Rob et al. were saying make Soylent so great: that Soylent would make grocery shopping, cleaning dishes, eating out, etc. completely optional. That we would be able to eat more expensive, traditional food at our own leisure. As it stands, that will not be the case for a very large number of people.

Since they got rid of the separate formulations for men and women, they are in fact doing this (at least as far as men are concerned).


I am concerned that two differences specifically called out in the page linked from the post aren’t being addressed: calcium and iron.

According to the page, woman should consume more calcium to lower the risk of osteoporosis, while men should consume less calcium, as high calcium intake has been linked to an increased risk of advanced prostate cancer, the risk of osteoporosis is lower in men, and there is less evidence that calcium protects against osteoporosis in men.

Similarly, woman need more iron than men. The page gives recommended values of 18mg for women and 8mg for men. It also specifically states that men should avoid excess iron.

Thus it seems that providing enough of these minerals for women will entail providing too much for men, resulting in health risks. I therefore ask that you seriously reconsider using the same quantities for both men and women.



when i go to mcdonalds they dont have a double cheeseburger for men/women, we should ask mcdonalds to make one for each sex, that should go for every restaurant and bag of chips, who’s with me?


So the “plenty of iron” that Soylent has is separate from the main powder? Or is it all mixed together in the current iteration? Because if men are eating more of the mix than women, for caloric needs, they would be getting MORE iron than women - opposite of what’s recommended.

Also, from the blog: “While it does cost less to fill the female blend, all other costs are identical, and there is additionally a manufacturing cost associated with having two different fill levels, packages, etc.” This seems as if the burden of paying for Soylent’s choice to deliver dual options is passed solely to women. If their packet costs less to fill, why should they pay for the company’s overhead increase incurred from offering two blends?


Guys, they’ve hired of team of nutritionists that are most likely smarter and more knowledgable about nutrition than any of us to help put this thing together. I seriously doubt they’re going to send out a product with dangerous amounts of iron or calcium etc.


Right, because McDonalds is a great example to follow for healthy food to eat at every meal.