I'm not going to run-on and on here, but I'm on 1.4 right now (first time Soylent user) and I'm pleasantly surprised.
I was very skeptical about it at first and got it just to convince myself I didn't need it. Immediately I felt pretty good and didn't crave the burrito I wanted for lunch.
I'm also very excited that it's vegan because that's been my diet for over 8 years.
How comfortable do you feel giving up raw fruits/vegetables in favor of Soylent? I feel like that is my main question about the product, and I would be curious to hear from a vegan what the experience is like.
Not the GP, but I think anyone who'd give up real food like that for this glop is being idiotic.
People who supplement their diet with Soylent, or use it to meet their dietary needs in the face of busy schedules, or whatever, are one thing. People who replace a diet involving actual plants (or even animals, if you enjoy eating things that had faces) deserve everything they're going to get.
One thing that's surprisingly not mentioned at all in their FAQ is the actual process of preparing the stuff. Do you have to use a blender or can you get away with just stirring it up with a spoon?
I've been using a blender for awhile now. I found that just dumping it all in the pitcher and shaking was a PITA. It always clumped to the sides and bottom. Now I put about half the required water in my blender, turn it on and slowly pour the powder/oil into the whirling water. Then I dump that into my pitcher. I rinse the sides of the blender with some water that I then dump into my pitcher. I top off the pitcher as needed. A little bit of shaking then finishes mixing the newly added water with the blended slurry. It has been working out pretty well for me.
I am curious to see how the 1.4 mixes. My subscription really out paced me so I have about 35-40 pouches of 1.3 to get through before I get to the 1.4 box.
With the previous version it was simply mixing about 1.5L of water with a bag of powder, shaking vigorously, then adding oil and about .5L of water, and finally shaking and cooling. Now the step with the oil is out, and it's a just add water and shake.
I dont think a spoon would be adequate. It's just a little too fine and clumps easily.
They supply a pitcher if you subscribe (or used to) and recommend making it in the pitcher and shaking vigorously. I use an immersion blender usually.
Additionally, I prefer it cold, so (if I'm not making a batch in advance) being able to throw some ice in with the blender to make a 'smoothie' is far more satisfying than going room temp.
The powder ships with an instruction manual in each box. They recommend a blender for smoother consistency. My first night testing it out I tried one pitcher using a blender and one shaken by hand. The next morning, the pitcher that was mixed with a blender has less fat separation.
We now mix individual servings in protein shakers instead of a blender or the larger pitcher. The smoothness is close to the blender pitcher.
I don't recommend using the pitcher. I got bored with that process after a couple days. I usually make shakes with a blender. If I'm on the go heading to the gym, I will toss it in my Blender Bottle and just mix it with protein powder in there.
I'm almost finished with my first shipment (formula 1.3) and my results have been positive. I use it to replace some, but not all, meals in my diet. I think it especially excels in situations where I am in a hurry or too lazy to cook, because it's far more nutritious and cost-effective than the meals I would eat/skip otherwise.
I currently have my subscription set up so that I receive 2 weeks work of Soylent every month.
Breakdown:
500 calories per meal
~$2.33 per meal
How I use it:
Complete meal/snack replacement for breakfast and lunch most days. Rarely have it for dinner.
What I've learned so far:
Don't drink it right after you mix it unless you shake it really really well, otherwise you'll encounter clumps. Given at least an hour to soak in water, it reaches a clumpless consistency.
The taste is fairly neutral with a slight hint of malty sweetness. Some people rave about using it as a coffee creamer, but I myself have not tried that.
The texture is grainy in comparison to a smoothie, but this is to be expected with a powder-based meal.
It's filling, very easy to drink when chilled, and the bowel movements are regular in frequency (and consistency!) with no notable increase in gas.
So far I'm pretty happy with it. It strikes me as a good deal healthier and ridiculously more convenient than anything else I'd make for myself, meal-wise, if you can tolerate sacrificing flavor and texture.
I'm almost done with my 1.3 and looking forward to 1.4. The big thing for me is the lack of the oil bottle and the sodium (I wasn't getting enough before and would get headaches).
At this point, my body has fully adjusted and I crave Soylent at some times. I use it for ~1/2 my meals and could easily see it taking 2/3. I do enjoy regular food a _lot_ so I doubt I'll ever go full time, but it definitely has helped to balance out my nutrition fully.
I continue to feel that Soylent is the first company that will likely feed the world - literally. Without the oil bottle and the ability to scale manufacturing, it is only a matter of time before we see Soylent as part of humanitarian convoys and/or used in medical settings. The possibilities are quite frankly amazing...
There are already better products for humanitarian use and for medical use. The medical products come in a wide variety of styles to suit different medical needs. The humanitarian products are much cheaper than soylent and don't require so much water - which is in short supply in the target regions; and they have a more suitable nutrient profile.
It's baffling when people claim soylent could be used for medical or humanitarian purposes, especially when those uses have been debunked on HN everytime they're mentioned.
You make good points. One point that is proposed by the pro-soylent groups that you may have overlooked: if soylent were to succeed commercially, economies of scale could develop that would make it price attractive even to the global poor.
That matter of time may be a very long time. There are already foods which handle this application well enough. See Citadel spread, Plumpynut, K-Mix-2. The difference is that these provide more calories per weight than soylent and don't require added water (except the K-Mix-2). If they can come up with a high calorie Soylent and eliminate the need to add water (perhaps serve it as a paste) then it would be used in humanitarian convoys. As it is now, that's not likely to happen.
I have my own reasons, namely the logistics part of the equation.
What initially gained my interest about Soylent was that it seems that they are developing it in such a way as to reduce logistical burden and ensure ingredients can be found and produced with relative ease.
I'm no expert, for sure, but that they immediately gravitated toward the logistics of food as one key area to attack got my interest. I still have more research to do to fully understand the space, but my gut feeling is that they have a massive potential that is slowly being unlocked.
Perhaps its where i live (UK) or maybe its because i purposely buy food that tends to be expensive but $12 (£8) for a day of meals is crazy cheap. Thats around what i spend on lunch every day.
If you're making your own meals ($3/meal), yes, it is expensive. If you eat out then it is much more reasonable. A single eat-out costs ballpark around $6/meal, so assuming you did that twice it would break even.
I agree re. sample size. $85 in one go is hard to justify to the +1 when all you're really buying is food. $6 here or there is easy to ignore, but $85 is a weekly grocery shop in everyone's mind.
I wonder if price will come down as they expand? It might be wishful thinking to be honest, but I do suspect there are a fair few people who would happily try it if it was closer to $4/meal rather than $6/meal per now (i.e. $8/day from $12/day).
PS - I have to admit my three reasons for not trying it is: price, manufacturing problems/delays, and also I remain unconvinced that we know enough about nutrition to create this product that won't caused health defects in the medium to long term.
For food (at least, under many state sales tax regimes in the US), food that isn't sold in a restaurant (roughly, the exact rules are a bit different) isn't subject to sales tax. Its not a size issue, its a what they are selling issue.
I could name local places but they won't mean anything to you. However even Burger King's combo meals are around $6/meal [0] as are KFC [1] and McDonalds [2] (all within $1 of $6, some less). Local places are even better value.
However I get the sense this "question" wasn't asked because you legitimately wanted an answer. You just wanted to raise doubt that $6/meal is a thing. As I've shown, it is.
Can we also at least agree that enough is known about nutrition to determine that soylent is nutritionally better than the $6 options you provided? So as long as we're comparing alternatives to soylent in price, let's also compare them on the qualities of nutrition that we do know.
The US has remarkably cheap fast food, far cheaper than anywhere else I've been. As an example, compared to Canada the prices are easily 25-30% cheaper (around here finding a decent meal at lunch for less than $8 is nearly impossible, and closer to $10 is typical).
Ahhh, I suppose it depends on where you are in the US. In ultra-affluent places like some DC suburbs, the prices are closer to those Canadian ones you mentioned.
At the absolute bottom fast food chains (McDonalds and Taco Bell) you can get meals <$7, but at any other nationwide fast food chain it'll be $7-9. Local places (fast casual) are typically $10+.
The price comes down with bulk and subscription (save 20% on sub). you cited "$6/meal per now" and I believe that was a mistake. If a week (7 days) supply is $85, you have $12.14 per day and about $4.05 per meal, which hits your target of "closer to $4/meal". On a separate note if you buy a months supply (don't have to eat it in one month) that is $300 for 28 days (84 meals) it comes to roughly $3.57/meal.
I do agree that the manufacturing delay was easily the worst part of the experience, but other than that I'm loving the product. I hope that many more people trying it will lower the price more because this has done a dent on my daily food bill, and it'd be great to see it come down more through widespread use.
> If a week (7 days) supply is $85, you have $12.14 per day and about $4.05 per meal, which hits your target of "closer to $4/meal".
Many people don't spend $6 or even $4 on three meals a day. They buy lunch and dinner, both costing around $6 if they eat out or around $3 if they make a packed lunch (more for dinner).
There might be someone somewhere who buys a premium breakfast for $4 a day and then spends $4-6 at lunch and dinner, but those people are a rare exception.
Most people are going to compare it to the meals they actually have now and what they spend. It doesn't become cheaper just because they recommend you have it for breakfast too. Breakfast is dead for the vast majority of the adult population (unless coffee counts?).
> On a separate note if you buy a months supply (don't have to eat it in one month) that is $300 for 28 days (84 meals) it comes to roughly $3.57/meal
That's irrelevant because the issue is getting people into the product who think it is too expensive. Suggesting they spend $300 as a buy in is not only unhelpful but also makes them much less likely to want to try it.
Also that's only $1.50 cheaper per day than the base price. Hardly a saving. Still costs above $10/day. Adding breakfast doesn't save any money, it is just a way to make it seem cheaper than it actually is...
> Most people are going to compare it to the meals they actually have now and what they spend.
Fair enough. Before switching to Soylent, I was regularly (meaning "nearly every work day") spending $8-$12 a day just for lunch. What I was spending on lunch for just one day is enough to fund several days of Soylent lunch. Or, during times when I am on a 100% Soylent diet, enough to fund more than an entire day's worth of meals. (I never could drink an entire pouch in one day.) So Soylent is very much saving me money. YMMV.
I would hazard a guess that a majority of people that realize a significant savings in Soylent live in places where things run a bit more expensive. I'm in Berkeley. Sure I can get a lunch for $5 but it won't be a quality lunch. And dinner? I can't think of any place where I can touch dinner for <$10 (unless I'm going to the same places I can get a $5 lunch). Granted, we usually cook dinner at home. And Honestly, I have no idea how much dinners cost at home. There are 5 of us. I buy food. We eat food. I assume it is cheaper than going out. But I can state with near certainty, it is more expensive (per person) than Soylent. It is funny when people talk about how they could never drink the joyless slop when they can cook fabulous meals at home for $3/meal... and then go on to describe meals that probably do only cost $3 but seems just as joyless as Soylent.
Side note: I've lost ~20 lbs over the last 4-5 months that I will attribute 80% of to Soylent. Even if some of that is just psychological, it is still working for me. Again, YMMV.
There are people on /r/Soylent who will offer to ship you a sample for free or cost of shipping only. I felt the same lingering doubt about shelling out $85 for something I might not like, but after reading about all of the different recipes to add/alter flavor, I felt confident I could at least get it to a drinkable state and not throw the money away, and that turned out to be true. It's actually not bad at all plain, and there are numerous additions that make it quite tasty.
The biggest savings for me has been time. No need to drive out weekly for groceries, and fewer cravings to eat out during the week. It takes roughly 15 minutes each night to clean bottles and prep shakes for my wife and I, which will be used the next day.
Glad to see they've integrated the separate oil bottle -- that will make it way more portable.
On another note, I hope that the increase in manufacturing capacity will eventually allow Soylet to be purchased through traditional retail channels -- it'd be nice to just buy it by the package instead of bulk-orders online.
I like the idea of Soylent, but everything I have read lately on nutrition seems to suggest that gettings vitamins and minerals from real food should be a priority and is against multivitamins. I wonder what is people's view on Soylent as a replacement for fruits/vegetables? Is the nutritional makeup somehow different from a multi-vitamin? If it isn't, then it just seems like an overpriced protein powder alternative. I can't seem to find any info on their site.
Look at something like cholesterol. We used to think high blood cholesterol was caused by a diet high in saturated fat, and that this was a causal risk factor for hear attack.
If we got that wrong how well are going to do with all the micronutrients and other stuff that is in real food?
Soylent had a terrible, unethical, marketing campaing during its kickstarter. (Probably illegal in the US - it made medical claims) but they seem to be a lot more careful about that kind of stuff now.
If you're going to use any of the meal replacement products (there are loads on the market) you don't have to give up real food. You can still eat fruit and veg alongside your nutrient-gloop.
Has anyone lost weight on this? I'd also be curious if it lowered your blood pressure [1] if it was high, and if it helped with any other health issues.
[1] I'm thinking the high potassium, and low sodium could lower high blood pressure?
I've lost ~20lbs since I first started drinking Soylent. My longest stretch of a 100% Soylent diet was for 2 weeks when I first got it last August. I lost ~8lbs during that time. I was mixing one pouch with enough water to make 4 pints. I would have 1 pint for breakfast, lunch and dinner. So I was getting ~1500 calories a day. From Thanksgiving into the New Year, I hardly drank any Soylent. And the scale was certainly ready to remind of that. I managed to undo much of my weight loss as a result. At the beginning of this year I added exercise to my routine. Since that first 2 week stretch last year, I've gone as much as a week at a time. But typically, I will do 2-3 days of 100% Soylent, then have a solid dinner one night. Some times stuff gets in the way and I'll not have Soylent for a day or two. It varies week to week. I'm a bit of an emotional eater so when things get hectic or stressful, I crave crappy food. So there are days when I've just said "F it... I'm getting pizza." So Soylent is not going to be some magic diet drink that will give you willpower you didn't already have. :)
Speaking only to weight, my wife and I did lose a planned number of pounds. Soylent was a means of controlling caloric intake, while providing complete nutrition while exercising.
Official blog entry reports: "These reductions come from the removal of gum acacia and the decreased quantity of oat flour. There is still ample fiber in Soylent 1.4, and we are happy to have found a balance between essential fiber content and digestibility." http://blog.soylent.me/
I posted my comment prematurely, I hadn't read through the article fully yet. I feel a bit embarrassed about obviously commenting on an article that I hadn't fully read, which is why I deleted my comment (before having seen your reply)...
You'll get more detailed user opinions on the soylent forum.
I go through 3 bags a week. I'm on my second of 1.4:
The sugar crashes I would get in previous versions are significantly reduced in 1.4.
The artificial vanilla flavor made 1.3 tastier; 1.4 is easier to prep but its blend of oils and lack of grittiness makes it smoother and slimier.
Unmodified 1.4 digests slightly better than 1.3 for me.
1.3 digested best for me when I added psyllium husk.
I'll be adding that again next batch to test.
From what i've read, you mix it the night before, put it in the fridge overnight to get smooth and then consume it throughout the day. So presumably you'd just take a small bottle of it into work for your lunch.
That is correct. I mix up 2 meals worth each night and grab them from the fridge in the morning. One for breakfast immediately and the second for lunch at the office. I do not use the provided pitcher, but rather mix individual servings in these: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00MVMCUK8
This is how I prepare mine at the end of each day before bed. If I know I'm going to be working late, I'll bring the pitcher in with me. Otherwise, I just fill a 28oz blender bottle for lunch and afternoon meals.
You can powderise oils using maltodextrin, it's a trick that a lot of gastro-chefs have been using for years. Turns back into oil in the presence of any liquid.
Agreed that plants are great (I've been vegan for 12 years), but Soylent provides a dependable solution for those who need a quick, nutritious meal (such as breakfast) and has opened up interesting possibilities such as sipping down lunch while taking a walk in a park.
Plus, you can use Soylent as an excellent base for making smoothies that include other fruits, veggies, etc.
The marketing hype was good - similar meal replacement products have existed for many years and so people could have bought something off the shelf of their local Walgreens[1] for their walk in the park, but they didn't appear to realise it until soylent appeared.
[1] I say Walgreens because it's the only US drugstore I know. Substitute Boots in the UK or whatever for where you are.
The big difference is that the competing products have been marketed heavily to those who are elderly or have special medical needs that make regular food problematic (specialized forms have also been marketed as weight loss aids, etc., as well.)
The big innovation in Soylent is not the product (though there are some differences in the product) but in targeting healthy, upper-income demographics with marketing.
I'm unambiguously, loudly, incredibly dubious about Soylent, and personally think it's ridiculous, but even I don't think it's "obviously horrible for your health".
Kale, cooked, boiled, drained, without salt
Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)
Energy 117 kJ (28 kcal)
Carbohydrates
5.63 g
Sugars 1.25 g
Dietary fiber 2 g
Fat
0.4 g
Protein
1.9 g
Vitamins
Vitamin A equiv.
beta-carotene
lutein zeaxanthin
(85%) 681 μg
(76%) 8173 μg
18246 μg
Thiamine (B1) (5%) 0.053 mg
Riboflavin (B2) (6%) 0.07 mg
Niacin (B3) (3%) 0.5 mg
Vitamin B6 (11%) 0.138 mg
Folate (B9) (3%) 13 μg
Choline (0%) 0.4 mg
Vitamin C (49%) 41 mg
Vitamin E (6%) 0.85 mg
Vitamin K (778%) 817 μg
Trace metals
Calcium (7%) 72 mg
Iron (7%) 0.9 mg
Magnesium (5%) 18 mg
Manganese (20%) 0.416 mg
Phosphorus (4%) 28 mg
Potassium (5%) 228 mg
Sodium (2%) 23 mg
Zinc (3%) 0.24 mg
Other constituents
Water 91.2 g
Link to USDA Database entry
Units
μg = micrograms • mg = milligrams
IU = International units
Percentages are roughly approximated using US recommendations for adults.
Source: USDA Nutrient Database
Kale is very high in beta carotene, vitamin K, vitamin C, and rich in calcium. Kale is a source of two carotenoids, lutein and zeaxanthin.[9] Kale, as with broccoli and other brassicas, contains sulforaphane (particularly when chopped or minced), a chemical with potent anti-cancer properties.[10]
Boiling decreases the level of sulforaphane; however, steaming, microwaving, or stir frying does not result in significant loss.[11] Along with other brassica vegetables, kale is also a source of indole-3-carbinol, a chemical which boosts DNA repair in cells and appears to block the growth of cancer cells.[12][13] Kale has been found to contain a group of resins known as bile acid sequestrants, which have been shown to lower cholesterol and decrease absorption of dietary fat.[citation needed] Steaming significantly increases these bile acid binding properties.[14]
Soylent is going to have no problem providing all of those ingredients.
You gotta reach for delicate and complex organic molecules that are not well characterized, not stuff so well understood that it is listed in internet nutrition databases.
1) Soylent doesn't include the vast library of known life extending phytonutrients.
2) we haven't discovered most of these compounds, we just know plants have them
I think most things stand up pretty well to the stomach. Often though, it is the metabolites of any given substance which do the good, so its after they're processed somewhat.
Why would you wait for him to ask before you provided that information? I wish you had originally formulated this reply, into a reply to the article, as to spare us all of one-liners.
I admit, I was attempting to create controversy to create a thread which would attract viewers. Single, informative comments tend to be less successful here than long threads.
Actually, the entire list of non-essential but beneficial nutrients in Kale are good for you, and not in Soylent. This is the case for many plant foods. Just check wikipedia.
However, we haven't identified most phytonutrients in plants that promote long life. We just know they're in there, and that eating plants is the ONLY thing you can do that reliably makes you live longer. So there is no chance Soylent can include these unidentified - but essential to a long life - compounds. Substituting meat for Soylent... ok. For plants... horrible way to shorten your life.
The one thing we know for sure is that we haven't discovered most of what about fruits and vegetables causes ppl who eat the to live longer. Cutting the two food groups that actually extend life from your diet is the dumbest thin you can do.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. For example, just because Indian food exists doesn't mean you can't include Chinese or Mexican food in your diet. Similarly, just because people consume Soylent doesn't mean they've cut out all other forms of food. A lot of people simply use Soylent for one or two meals (such as breakfast and lunch, Monday through Friday).
I get this. To be honest, I had gastric surgery last year, so my stomach isn't big enough to process enough plants to get basic nutrition. I have to take lots of vitamins, or I will get malnutrition.
Why anyone would CHOOSE to have to eat this way though, if they don't have some terrible health problem, is beyond me.
Live longer? How many old people have horrible diets, smoke, and are pretty much on track to die at 70/80? Guess what, you can eat all the kale and fruit you want, but you're going to get old and die, all the while people with worse diets are going to live longer than you. It's not fair, but that's life. Eat some fruit, go for a run, get hit by a bus.
I was very skeptical about it at first and got it just to convince myself I didn't need it. Immediately I felt pretty good and didn't crave the burrito I wanted for lunch.
I'm also very excited that it's vegan because that's been my diet for over 8 years.