Soylent v2.1 Wishlist and Future Developments


That study was on mice not humans, and they dosed them with many times more sucralose than equivalent human use. Sucralose, aspartame, stevia, and other sweeteners have already been extensively studied in human populations.

I never said sucralose was a nutrient.

All sugar is by definition chemical.

As for why Soylent uses sucralose it’s to mask the bitter flavor of the vitamins and minerals. It’s used as a flavor masking agent rather than a sweetener, which is why they use so little of it for a whole day’s worth of food.


First, let me say that I like the fact that we share studies here and debate their merits.

I read through the summary and was immediately struck by the fact that they tested mice - not humans. I recall similar controversy over soy protein isolate, and learned that the animals used in that study process soy differently then humans.

Until someone can establish this outcome in mice is likely to be identical in humans, this is like seeing a candle melt wax and warning people to keep rocks away from an open flame.

It also occurred to me that people have been consuming a lot more sucralose than there is in Soylent in their coffee and tea for many years. Maybe I am naïve about how likely it is that we can make accurate correlations in a multi-variant environment, but it seems likely that given millions of people have been consuming it for decades someone might have picked up a pronounced causal effect between Sucralose and cancer by now, right?


A version with a reasonable level of carbohydrates, in the range of 0-150g per day, as opposed to the obesity, diabetes causing 230g/day they currently have. It’s a wonder anybody can eat it routinely with that level of carbs. It’s like eating a cake or pizza, but less healthy.


Are you drinking 6+ bottles a day? Or were you looking at the 1.5 nutrition instead of the 2.0 nutrition? Because a day’s worth of 2.0 is 185g. That’s still outside of the range you want, but it’s quite a bit lower than 230g.


More protein and different flavors :stuck_out_tongue:


Can’t promise the protein, but as Rob has stated before we are working on flavors. We have a flavor engineer on staff.


You still have not answer my question, where is the research on human being Sucralose being essential part of our diet. And if it can cause cancer in mice, I do not want it in my body.

I have no problem intaking food or even some chemicals into my body, but the problem I have is the low quality ingredients. After all, these are the things I am putting into my body, and I do research upon the ingredients that does not look right.

There are people like you who puts their trust in a company and expect them to have customer’s interest as their top priority, but in real world the company strives by making money, and your health is not in their top priority, far too often it gets completely out of hand and cause embargo by consumers before they even make a change. Just recently they’ve found out there are more “lead” in soylent 1.5 by law in California, only contacted by the legal they had to put up the warning. That is just sickening.

I would much rather pay a little more and get some better ingredients, remove chemicals such as Sucralose, Vitamin D2, and replace it with some simple cane sugar and D3. They can even do a experiment and see if people are willing to pay a little more for better quality ingredients.

I buy soylent for sake of connivence, but I would prefer them to add some better quality ingredients and charge us a little more, and I refuse to drink another bottle that contains chemicals that has absolutely no utility in my body other than to “balance the taste”, give me a break, you can use any other healthier sweetener to do that…


No one made that claim.

All food is made of chemicals.



Perhaps you can find a company that meets your demands. Good luck!


Also a reply to geneven

I get that it’s great to defend Soylent, but there seems to be a serious confirmation bias on these forums whenever anyone has any valid criticism. Instead of saying its perfect its perfect if you don’t like it leave, why can’t we admit there are very reasonable ways that Soylent can still be improved? If we band together and identify some real valid improvements Soylent just might listen.

Here it is again:
-Better vitamin sources
-Lose sucrolose
-Better macro ratio

I know there is not a better alternative out there, but that doesn’t mean our product can’t be improved. We can all benefit if we admit Soylent is not perfect and embrace the criticisms.


If you search, you’ll find that’s all been discussed here.

Better vitamin sources – for at least one of those, it wouldn’t be vegan. That’s just the one thing I remember off the top of my head.

Sucrolose – most people don’t want the bitter vitamin taste. A lot of people don’t care what it is, as long as it’s not HFCS, corn syrup or sugar. Rob is apparently one of those people.

Macro ratio – for 2.0, it’s pretty close to the latest recommendations. A few people want more protein, but they tend to also want more cals so it’s easy for them to toss in some protein powder. Keto isn’t something everyone wants, and Rosa isn’t interested in two different formulas for the same form.

I’m sure all of the above are things something Rosa Labs will keep futzing with, as new recommendations come in and they find new options for ingredients.


Once a week someone pops up and says, “Hey, Soylent isn’t perfect! I have a brilliant idea that’s only been discussed a million times! All they have to do is change the product to my specifications and everything will be perfect!” Stick around for a year or so. You’ll see what I mean.


I agree 100% and have brought this up a few times before… but this particular thread doesn’t fit that bill.[quote=“nanciejk, post:136, topic:24098”]
A few people want more protein, but they tend to also want more cals so it’s easy for them to toss in some protein powder.

A lot of people want more protein, without increasing calories. (just sayin’)


Well if maltodextrin were dropped lower protein could go up… Just sayin’ :D.


I don’t know that Soylent will be able to answer the protein demand for everyone. I, for example, target around 200 g protein a day. The calories aren’t that much of a factor, but I do prefer to get the protein with as few extra carbs if possible.

This may be a bit much for some peoples’ goals, so I will likely have to add protein to whatever Soylent ends up with.


Even if RL was to make specialty blends for specific purposes, it would be hard to fit the needs of everyone. I think the decision is try and aim for the middle was a wise one, even if I would prefer a lower carb version.


I figure they’ll eventually have a couple of different formulations, targeting some different (and still relatively broad) demographics. I’m talking years out here, not short term, and OFC it depends if the overall popularity hits a point where it makes sense to expand things in that direction.


While it might be difficult to get the protein as high as many people want it, the level is still lower than many need for a healthy diet. For a product that is supposed to be able to serve as a person’s exclusive diet–even if we know it doesn’t for most consumers–protein levels should err on the side of being a little high rather than too low.


I believe that some national health authorities recently said that many men and boys were getting too much protein and should cut down. That doesn’t invalidate your point, but it is interesting.


What does too much protein do? I am not one of the nutrition experts on this site, so I wonder what the actual consequences are. I guess too much of anything is bad, but I wonder how much extra protein gets you over the threshold for problems. My hunch is that Soylent could add significantly more protein before it’s close to being an issue, but my other hunch is that they’re not going to add any more protein anyway.