Soylent v2.1 Wishlist and Future Developments


#1

I could not find a topic like this yet, and I am very interested to hear the community’s feedback. After 4 weeks of 50% 2.0, I find myself struggling to think of improvements for the next version of pre-mixed Soylent. The consistency and flavor are to a point where it is hard to imagine what can be changed for the better.

I have heard some community members discussing possible changes in nutrition however. For example, using a different form of certain vitamins or implementing a non-Soy based protein. Of course, there are always some members requesting flavored versions and different macro ratios for those of us with different lifestyles.

While these refinements would be welcome, the two biggest steps that Soylent can take in my view would be A) further lowering the price per meal and B) Offering a solid / bar form.

I know some may argue that the powdered version exists for those who want a cheaper price point, and the 1 year shelf life and premixed nature of 2.0 negates the advantages of a solid Soylent form. However I still think there is room for improvement.

What else would be valuable for v2.1 and beyond? What improvement would you like to see in the Soylent line?


Is Soylent 2.0 cutting corners in nutrient quality?
#2

I think it needs a little more fiber. As it is I’m pretty much guaranteed a trip to the bathroom within an hour of a soylent meal. I started adding a little, like maybe a gram or two, psyllium husk fiber with (or before) a bottle and that seems to help a lot.

Also I’m noticing residue on the bottom of my bottles when I’m done, I’m guessing I’m losing some nutrients there (maybe the fiber?) so they need to fix that. I shake each bottle pretty well so I don’t think that’s the problem.


#4

Solid Soylent would potentially solve my tiny problems with 2.0. I assume it would lower the price and take a lot less room to store a months worth. I also think it would be a LOT easier to get people to eat it. People are used to eating “power bars” so I think you would get less of “OMG you can’t live on a liquid diet”.

Overall I would be fine living on Soylent 2.0 the rest of my life. I am excited about all the cool stuff Rob is thinking about so I expect there to be improvements for a long time.


#5

Here’s what’d make me go 100% without thinking twice:

  • Dense, solid bar (like a big protein bar)
  • Cost < $1.40/400kcal
  • Taste as inoffensive as 2.0
  • Macro ratio of 2.0
  • Compact, minimalistic packaging
  • A good amount of DHA/EPA

Here are some extra wants/ideas:

  • Gum or hard candy designed to neutralize the “Soylent breath” some of my partners complain about (v1.5)
  • Some nootropics
  • Infrared vision (I know there was a group working on this, but I haven’t heard about it in a while)
  • Your own research showing hormonal effects of Soylent
  • Referral program
  • Student discount

#7

I think the 2x versions will be ready to drink, and solid versions will be named 3x. Regarding 2.1 i would like to see EPA added if possible, find a way to migrate to (atleast some) algal protein from soy if its possible ofcourse, lowered fat, even lower heavy metals than 2.0…its lower in 2.0 than 1X versions , but even lower isnt a bad thing to aim for.


#8

I’m willing to pay $350/month for Soylent 2.0. I wonder how much price is really a factor. Getting the monthly price below the average price of groceries per person would make the case for Soylent even more compelling (at least in the abstract).

A solid version and maybe some flavours would add variety. The core 2.0 product is pretty perfect as is.

Right now the biggest friction with Soylent 2.0 is getting it delivered. The boxes are super heavy which makes picking them up from Purolator or the post office complicated and a bit onerous.

A powder following the same recipe as 2.0 might end up being the solution to the shipping friction. If I can achieve the same taste and texture to 2.0 just by adding water, that elimenates the need to ship so much water around.


#9

Maybe a “powder in bottle” type? Just add water. But same time probably not. lol


#10

2.0 is the first version that I’ve been interested in consuming … even 1.5 was inedible to me. There are just two problems with 2.0:

  1. It isn’t certified gluten free (although I suspect that the gluten is actually low enough).
  2. The use of canola oil … this precludes my wife from using it (she has a canola/rapeseed oil allergy).

Perhaps 2.1 could use a different oil (which should be much easier than it would be with the powder)? Or perhaps different formulas could be offered using different oils … we’d certainly be happy to pay more for an alternative, just as we currently pay more for gluten-free and canola oil-free foods.


#11

I think my top three asks are:

  1. Vitamin D3 to replace the D2
  2. Vitamin K2 to replace the K1
  3. I would prefer a slight increase in fiber if it doesn’t negatively impact the texture

Although D2/K1 are sufficient from what I’ve read D3/K2 would probably be optimal. I would certainly purchase a non-vegan D3/K2 version over a vegan D2/K1 version all else being equal.


#12

Chocolate flavor, because the (lack of) flavor is boring. Since I live in a desert, there’s no advantage to a solid bar form for me on a hike because I’d just have to carry more water to drink with it.


#13

@walt_haas, have you tried adding Nesquik?


#14
  • Solid form (big and hearty. maybe a cake. with soylent icing, too)
  • more protein (athlete mix)
  • drone delivery

#15

Only request is don’t ruin it with the taste and consistency like you did with the powder.


#16

The usual phytonutrients. Specifically carotenoids like lutein and lycopean.


#17

An athlete mix of the liquid version would be nice, but the increase from 80g to 100g (from memory, feel free to correct me if I’m off) of protein daily from 1.5 to 2.0 was a nice compromise in my opinion. I would request they not lower the protein content of 2.0 in future versions though.

I was adding 26g of protein to 1.5 daily, for whatever that’s worth in this context.


#18

My votes would go to:

  • Chocolate (malt) flavor (mild chocolate, not strong)
  • More EPA / DHA
  • No soy protein, as soy acts as a mild estrogen and isn’t healthy for men
  • Packaging that’s easier to open - that little plastic thing on the top isn’t the easiest
  • Edible bars - maybe something chocolate and hazelnut flavored
  • I read on Buzzfeed next version would have x-ray vision so I can actually see my body digesting the Soylent

#19

[quote=“Cory_Schulz, post:18, topic:24098”]
soy acts as a mild estrogen and isn’t healthy for men
[/quote]Neither claim is true.

RL wants to move away from soy because it’s a potential allergen. The soy protein isolate is a stopgap as it’s the best protein source until engineered algae can produce one with good AA balance, right now there is an algae protein compound out there which is AA complete but it’s not well balanced.

I’d like higher protein, 2.0 was a good step up but they’re nowhere near the safe upper limit and there’s still benefit to be gained. I’d prefer 25% of calories to the current 20%.

For nutrition:

  • higher protein
  • lower glycemic load
  • inclusion of EPA
  • inclusion of D3
  • increase fiber to match RDA
  • 400mg more sodium, so it’s in the middle of RDA range instead of the very bottom

Outside nutrition:

  • protein, carbs, and fat fully sourced from engineered algae farms instead of traditional farming
  • lower price closer to production cost. sorry and goodbye, profit margin :smile: hello, poor people!

Maybe in the future Non-Profit or Benefit corporations can be state contracted for socialized food provision of soylents? that would be fantastic and hilarious


#20

I thought fiber did the opposite of limiting your trips to the bathroom?


#21

There is some great stuff in this thread already, thanks everyone.

Hey @Conor,

Would it be possible to share some of the feedback in this thread with your development team and consider the enhancements in a future version?

Some of the main themes I have read so far include:
-Solid/bar form
-Increase in Protein / Non-Soy source
-Increase in Fiber
-Upgraded Vitamin sourcing (e.g. D3, K2)
-Improved Seal mechanism (easier to open, more resistant to molding)
-Cost Reduction
-Flavor/Chocolate option

Overall, 2.0 is really great, thanks for your hard work


#22

I get the impression people either don’t do week long backpacking trips in that area or they are able to find some water source every couple days at least. Say one plans for a gallon a day, a 7-week trip now requires carrying 7 gallons of water or 58 pounds of water. Add the rest of the camping gear and a hiker at 160 pounds and it just doesn’t seem realistic. They’d be carrying half their body weight at the start.

On shorter trips the weight wouldn’t matter as much since you wouldn’t have to carry as much food.