What is not complete nutritionally in 1.5

Water. :wink:

1 Like

@Conor the http://files.soylent.com/pdf/soylent-nutrition-facts.pdf ought to list values with their mass/weight/UI/mg/uq, that would be really helpful :slight_smile: Do you think that would be possible at some point in the future? Just like it does at the top for sodium and potassium?

(also I am glad I noticed that total Potassium just adds up to 3464 mg… I thought it was much higher… So I think I can cross it off the list of potential reasons I get problems after Soylent)

Also if we are going to judge Soylent’s nutritional completeness we should probably at least look at the Xcell file at the bottom of this page.

1 Like

Complex carbs that people cannot digest are called fiber. It’s the basic definition.

That said, fiber levels are not based on needs in the ‘body needs it as a nutrient’ sense so much as a ‘digestive process physically needs it for normal function’ sense. Consequently, the typical reference levels for “healthy” fiber intake, which are based on typical foods, may not apply well for a liquid diet.

Also, the one-size-fits-all nature of the DV (Daily Value, required for Nutrition Facts labels) is a bad fit when nutrition varies based on type of individual (male versus female versus pregnant woman etc.) Iron is a classic example; pre-menopausal women require higher iron levels than men, or they risk anemia. For men, that same level of iron intake may be a risk factor for heart problems. A single “DV” value is an inevitable compromise.


Well, that’s out of date now that 1.5 is shipping. @Conor ETA on spreadsheet update?

Here’s 1.5 https://faq.soylent.com/hc/en-us/article_attachments/202548035/Soylent_1.5_Formula.xlsx

Make sure that within the spreadsheet, you click on the 1.5 tab… there’s 2 tabs (1.4 and 1.5)


All correct, thanks!

Nutrition labels have to post FDA’s Daily Values. And RL designs Soylent within IOM (DRI) guidelines. That explains the difference. So, Soylent’s 1640mg or 1520mg sodium (still unsure which figure is correct, 1640mg is listed on Soylent’s website, and 1520mg was v1.4) is 64% of DV, but 102% of DRI.

Thanks for the spreadsheet link.

Looking at the omegas (which are not labelled enough) it appears 1.5 includes:

Omega-3 = .22 + 2.24 = 2.46g
Omega-6 = 15.61

1 Like

You won’t have to worry about manganese deficiency. According to Soylent’s spreadsheet, 1.5 contains 13.89 mg Mn per day, 695% of the Daily Value (DV). That exceeds the Institute of Medicine’s Tolerable Upper Limit of 11 mg Mn/day for male and female adults. The Nutrition “Facts” show each serving of Soylent to contain 25% of the DV of Mn where it should be 174%.

Also according to the spreadsheet, there are 57.56 IU of Vitamin E per day, 192% of the DV. Nutrition “Facts” show each serving to contain 26% of the DV of Vitamin E where it should be 48%.

Suggestion to Soylent team: stop grinding up MVM’s (multi-vitamin and mineral) into your formula and add each one separately as needed.

If only reality were as simple as this [derisive] outlook. Most micronutrients can’t exist in powdered form without some kind of bonding agent that usually accounts for the bulk of mass in any vitamin supplement. If they tried to manage each micro separately, Soylent would be made of mostly stuff that you don’t need, counter to RL’s entire philosophy.

I buy all micronutrients in powdered form. Virtually all of them are without fillers, binders, or excipients.

1 Like

From what i’m told there is only so much we can do to the label. That being said it’s a valid point and something we could potentially add into the release notes.


I’m Dr. John Bisognano, a preventive cardiologist at University of Rochester, N.Y. Let’s talk about salt: What advice should you follow to stay or get healthy? Go ahead, ask me anything.

Some good info there

They’re not. They get powdered vitamins/minerals from commercial suppliers of them.

The levels for things like manganese are primarily because they occur naturally in ingredients such as oat flour - but the organically-bound manganese in oat flour has very low bioavailability, so the minerals added contain a tiny amount of manganese, as well.




It’s really a moot point. Even if the “organically-bound” manganese has no bioavailability, it’s still a violation of United States federal law (Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations) to not include the amount in the Nutrition Facts.

Are you sure about that?

Here is the nutrition label for Bob’s Red Mill Oat Flour, which contains manganese:


Here is the nutrition label for NutriBiotic rice protein, also containing manganese:

As you can see, this is total anarchy.


Since you’re reading CFR, see 21CFR101.9(a), 21CFR101.9©, and 21CFR101.9©(8)(ii). If advertising or product literature provides information connecting the nutrients to the food, the so-called “voluntary nutrients”, such as Mn, must be added to the Nutrition Facts. Besides, it’s just common sense that if there’s 695% of Mn in the formulation, you can’t just arbitrarily reduce it to 100% on the Nutrition Facts.

To add to Spiff’s post… RL adds about 2 mg of supplemental manganese, to meet the daily requirement. This makes it an ingredient. As an ingredient, it must be listed, and it must be included in the Nutrition Facts with a DV. … But when it’s listed, they can’t show just the added manganese, they must show the total amount in the product, including the organically-bound fraction. Hence the high number.

I haven’t had luck researching exactly what fraction of the organically - bound fraction is bioavailable. (It’s eady to confirm that is largely unavailable, but I can’t find detail, and most references are to texts not really found online.)


…because 11.89 mg in the rest of the recipe is 100% not bioavailable?!

As an ingredient, it must be listed, and it must be included in the Nutrition Facts with a DV.

What about the 11.89 mg in the rest of the recipe. It doesn’t need to be listed? Please explain.

[quote=“nutrisludge, post:27, topic:21970”]

First, source your own claim that Rosa Labs grinds up pills for the product they sell. As you look for it, you’ll find out that they use a powder. (Note: I don’t mean what Rob might have blogged he was doing in his self-experiments two years ago, I’m talking about the stuff that actually goes into the product they sell now.)

[quote=“nutrisludge, post:27, topic:21970”]

Wow. You really like throwing the “source” challenge around. This is shown in the detailed nutrition info published by RL, which has already been linked in the thread you’re reading, so just scroll up, follow the links, and read. You’ll see that in Soylent Version 1.5, 11.7 mg of manganese come from the rice protein and the oat flour, while 2.19 mg come from the vitamin/mineral blend.

Your source?

I’m kidding. I don’t want to send you on a wild goosechase, since that’s actually actually incorrect. Most of the micronutrients possible on a DV label are not required at all, as long as they’re not added as separate ingredients. In fact, only four of them are actually required - A, C, calcium, and iron.

Source? Title 21, US Code of Federal Regulations, Secion 101.9 - NUTRITION LABELING OF FOOD. Enjoy.