Vitamin Supplements if I Can't Finish Soylent Quota?

A bottle of Soylent 2.0 gives me 20% of all my vitamins. I find I can’t drink more than 3 bottles a day - maybe 3 1/2. This is quite a bit lower than 5 bottles for 100% vitamin quotas.

Note - I’m talking about having nothing but Soylent.

So if I’m drinking 3-3.5 bottles of Soylent 2.0, does this mean I need vitamin supplements to make up for what I’m not getting? I would assume so no?

I guess it might be nice if we could separate the nutrients like vitamins from the macros like Carbs, Protein and Fat. That way, we could swallow the micro nutrients in one go and have the macros as and when we feel hungry.

As of now, having less than the recommended Soylent quota is a problem because we won’t be getting all the micros. Is my understanding correct? Am I overthinking this?

Your understanding is right. Still the more worrying thing to me is 1200 calories a day, that’s not sustainable.

Possibly - I’m 5’5 and don’t move around much. But the larger question is, suppose someone needs…let’s say 1500 calories per day, and drink accordingly. It means they will never get enough vitamins from Soylent alone.

Hence my suggestion that we find a way to consume micro nutrients regardless of how much Soylent (calories) we actually drink…

There’s a lot of leeway in the recommended micros. If you consume 1500 calories of Soylent per day, you’re probably getting much better micros than 1500 calories of normal food, so I wouldn’t worry about it too much.


1200 kcal/day is my usual intake, soylent or no

the general idea is the micronutrient rdas scale with kcal intake

1 Like

The 2000 calorie FDA guideline is a fairly significant undershot of how many calories the average man or woman needs. For example I put a small, inactive male into the mayo clinic calorie calculator and got 2050 calories. Don’t worry, he was only lightly damaged in the process.

Someone who legitimately only requires 1500 calories a day is going to be so physically small that they’ll need less of other nutrients as well, possibly excepting old people. I think it would be optimal if there were a low-calorie version but I doubt it makes an observable difference.

1 Like

Sententia: here is an example of an average small sized person that wouldn’t need many calories. There are people even smaller than that as well.

I think you are thinking an average sized person or bigger, but there are plenty of people (especially females) who are small enough that 1200 calories would be plenty.

Average and small are mutually exclusive in this context, which is why I said the FDA 2000 calorie is an undershot of both the male average and the female average. To prove that claim I put in data for a shorter, smaller, and less active than average male and still got more than 2000.

I’m pretty sure we’re in full agreement :wink:

Very true. I just meant that someone that sized is not all that uncommon. It is very believable that the OP in this thread could match the info I put in to the calorie calculator, or even be smaller.

(…or, could be larger and just trying to lose weight)

I know several people that would fit that description.

Edit: Now that I am looking up, I see that he says that he is 5’5" and by his picture appears to be male and not over middle-age. However, he also mentions 1500 calories, so perhaps that is his true target.

I don’t really have a “target” as such - for me it’s a question of whether or not I feel hungry. Right now I can have 3-31/2 bottles of Soylent 2.0. As in, I don’t feel like having more than that.

Hence my worries…

the nutrients should scale with your kcal intake - you’re probably fine.

1 Like

Oh, that’s cool then. Thanks!

Related discussion: Danger of ingesting too many micronutrients?

In particular this post is worth reading:


That’s an excellent point. Let me chew on it…