400 is perfect for me, since I want 1200 cals of Soylent in a “100%” Soylent day. It’s convenient enough that I think it’ll offset the time/expense involved in supplementing for 100% nutrition.
500 calories would be better for me, personally. But because of satiety and volume, I think 400 calories/14 ounces works better for a mass market approach.
I prefer the idea of 400 calorie meals to 500 as that is what I’m doing currently with the powder, then again I’m not planning on switching to 2.0, so I don’t have much of a dog in this fight.
The perfectionist in me would prefer the 500 ml (50 cl) as it’s comparable to the powdered Soylent and generally a good round number But really it doesn’t matter that much if (as suggested above) they have a measurement indicator on the side of the bottle. Only thing that worries me is more packaging waste, but (also indicated above) it could be a marketing thing (focus group research etc.) for what potential “offline” customers would prefer in a real world setting: 7-11 etc. And the idea that Soylent won’t “ever” do retail is simply wrong in my mind… maybe they wouldn’t do retail earlier… now they will
Any will do as long as it isn’t one of those antiquated “American” units (actual old British units, hence “Imperial”, though they don’t even use them anymore) like ounces and stinky feet and f’ing Fahrenheit etc.
Back On Topic (sort of):
Been thinking about packaging recently and since Soylent see themselves as wanting to save resources and eliminate waste shouldn’t the bottles (whatever the size) use something like LiquiGlide (http://liquiglide.com/) developed at MIT?
Also been thinking about a better name (maybe the wrong thread but… so what? ). Most of us can agree that using a (different) version number for the liquid version is silly and they (Rob?) has also said that “eventually” both products will be the same version/formula. So I suggest something as simple as: "Liquid Soylent"™ vs. "Solid Soylent"™… They’re both pretty “solid” names (pardon the pun) in my opinion and easily understandable and marketable. A bit futuristic like the product itself. What do you think?
Long-term, sure, it would be.
But for now, given that Rob said they intend to eventually make the powdered and liquid formulas be the same, then if we presume they want the powdered formula to become more like the liquid formula, 2.0 seems like a reasonable way to describe the liquid
Once the formula is the same for liquid and Soylent, I suspect they’ll call both of them Soylent 2.whatever, one name for liquid and powdered.
(Further discussion on naming and version numbers: Soylent Liquid 1.0?)
I prefer 400mL x 5 meals, as opposed to 500mL x 4 meals.
One big “milk jug” for a day’s worth of Soylent 2.0 sounds best, though. But then that’s essentially what the powder does. (how about 1 week’s or month’s worth of powder in a tub, like how you get protein powder)
I would prefer 500ml. That’s what I drink for breakfast and lunch now, and by the time I get home from work I’m hungry. If I was only getting 400ml for breakfast and lunch I’d start getting hungry around 3pm and bringing more bottles to work wouldn’t be my preference.
Do you think your body would adjust with time?
The steel thermos I’ve been using to take Soylent to work holds about 750ml and I usually split that into two mini lunches during the day. I anticipate two 2.0 bottles being a lot more convenient.
Definitely 400 ml for me. Definitely.
No wheezing the Ju-u-uice!
I’d rather have 400mL
Yes, when it ships to my country
the website says it comes in 400 kcal bottles. my mind boggled. so it meant 400 ml? that’s a bit of a relief.
The 2.0 bottles are both 400 calories (kcal) and 400 ml. Soylent is 1 calorie per ml, both 1.5 powdered version (as prepared), and 2.0 liquid version.
2 liters (or 2000 ml) = 2000 calories
It makes the math rather simple when one is determining how many calories per day they would like to consume.
I like the 400. I’m still calibrating how much I need to consume on Soylent-only days, but it looks like 1200 cals is going to be the magic number. A full 500 at a time is just too much for me to have in one sitting. Even with a 400 cal bottle I end up grazing on it for an hour or more and sometimes putting a little bit back in the fridge for later. With 1.5, I was usually doing just a 250 cal “snack” glass at a time (plus some flavorings blended in) and even that would take a long time to get down, though part of that was because 1.5 was relatively less appetizing, I think.
Then again, as long as I’m likely to wind up having less than a full bottle at a time anyway, I suppose it doesn’t matter so much whether it’s 400 or 500. If it would cut costs, I’d be totally down for getting, say, a 1L sized bottle and just pouring the amount I want into a glass. (Too big a bottle, though, and I’d be worried about spoilage occurring enough to negate the savings.)
Actually, to get technical, the bottle is 414 mL (at least that’s what the label says). Not sure exactly why RL elects to refer to its bottles in kcal terms, rather than by weight or volume the way the rest of the world does. I suppose it does help in positioning these as meals, rather than drinks, and maintains some comparability with powder.
I vastly prefer the 400 ml bottles. It yields so much more flexibility.