Are we really supposed to just take soylent as a healthy alternative for sustenance so we can continue to work? Just buy a juicer and keep it natural then. But really, take the break and eat a meal with a human being. You've got one life. Live it.
Are we really supposed to just take soylent as a healthy alternative for sustenance so we can continue to work? Just buy a juicer and keep it natural then. But really, take the break and eat a meal with a human being. You've got one life. Live it.
I didn't see any stipulations on the soylent website requiring you to avoid socializing and stay chained to your desk while drinking it. Maybe I missed some small print?
A bit hyperbolic, but this type of argument can be made for pretty much any disruptive technology that allows humans to overcome physical limits in order to make more choices about how they spend their time.
It's essentially pure sugar.
A real good juicer goes a long way. It changed my perspective the first time I tasted a fresh cup of what I describe above. Invigorating and healthy.
I enjoy eating food, but having the option to speed up my meal by a large factor and bond with friends over a different activity is pretty much entirely positive.
Still, I don't see how this is different than a bag of nuts and some veggies... Maybe cheaper and easier, but I'd rather put veggies in my body over powdered supplements...
Additionally, no one is saying that if I buy a bag of Soylent then I can never eat a pleasurable meal again. Why do people continue to use this "argument"? It doesn't logically follow from anything.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_(food_substitute)#Ingre...
Also, from what I understand many of the benefits of these nutrients are diminished or not observed when they are injested from industrial refined supplements like those used in Soylent as when they are eaten in whole plant foods like Kale.
The five nutrients where Kale had less were Sodium, Selenium, Pantothenic acid, Vitamin D, and Vitamin B12. Kale's Sodium was still 127% of the RDA, Selenium was 82% of the RDA, and Pantothenic acid was 91% of the RDA. Not bad for a single plant. I suspect that in a well-rounded whole plant diet these deficiencies would be resolved. If you grow your own Kale then you will make plenty of Vitamin D :) If you don't make enough then you can supplement Vitamin D like millions of animal-eating humans do. B12 is not included in plants, so obviously if you eat only plants you need to supplement it. It costs less than US$0.01/day so I don't see that as a major problem.
I'm highly suspicious that you will find many nutritionists who would say that Soylent is more nutritious than a diet of whole plant foods.
Notes: the USDA data for nutrient amounts in foods are not always very accurate. I believe the nutrient amounts linked by the parent represent an old Soylent recipe, since they have only 5g of fiber which is less than RDA of 25g (female) and 38g (male). "-" in the table indicates I don't have data for this. (+ (* 4.1 400) (* 50 4.1) (* 65 9.3)) => 2449.5 calories for the Soylent data you linked [edit: I'm not sure if carbs included fiber so it's possible that the Kale diet has 1% more calories than the Soylent diet]
Obviously I'm not recommending people eat 74.6 cups of Kale each day, but you can get all you need of these nutrients from a much more tasty diet of a variety of whole plant foods.
| | Soylent | Kale |
|---------------------+---------+----------|
| Calories | 2449.5 | 2449.1 |
| Carbohydrates | 400 g | 437 g |
| Protein | 50 g | 213 g |
| Fat | 65 g | 46 g |
| Sodium | 2.4 g | 1.9 g |
| Potassium | 3.5 g | 24.5g |
| Chloride | 3.4 g | - |
| Fiber | 5 g | 179 g |
| Calcium | 1 g | 7.4 g |
| Iron | 18 mg | 73 mg |
| Phosphorus | 1 g | 4.5 g |
| Iodine | 150 μg | - |
| Magnesium | 400 mg | 2349 mg |
| Zinc | 15 mg | 28 mg |
| Selenium | 70 μg | 45 μg |
| Copper | 2 mg | 74 mg |
| Manganese | 2 mg | 32 mg |
| Chromium | 120 μg | - |
| Molybdenum | 75 μg | - |
| Vitamin A | 5000 IU | 83220 IU |
| Vitamin B6 | 6 μg | 13.5 mg |
| Vitamin C | 60 mg | 5997 mg |
| Vitamin D | 400 IU | 0 |
| Vitamin E | 30 IU | 77 mg |
| Vitamin K | 80 μg | 35227 μg |
| Thiamin | 1.5 mg | 5.5 mg |
| Riboflavin | 1.7 mg | 6.5 mg |
| Niacin | 20 mg | 50 mg |
| Folate | 400 μg | 7047 μg |
| Biotin | 300 μg | - |
| Pantothenic acid | 10 mg | 4.5 mg |
| Lycopene | 500 μg | - |
| Omega-3 fatty acids | 750 mg | 9000 mg |
| Ginseng | 50 μg | - |
| Ginkgo biloba | 100 μg | - |
| Lutein | 500 μg | - |
| alpha-Carotene | 140 μg | - |
| Vanadium | 100 μg | |(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kale , 28 calories per 100g, 2500 calories would be 8,928g or 19.6829 lbs.)
I mention that it's a lot of Kale and allude that it's not practical to eat that much ("Obviously I'm not recommending people eat 74.6 cups of Kale each day"). The parent said there exists no combination of plants that could match the Soylent nutrients, and I showed that just using a single plant and a single supplement you could get almost there on all the nutrients for which I had data, so it's plausible there does exist some combination that gets there (except for B12, and possibly some of the other nutrients for which I don't have data if they do not exist in any plants).
Not that I'm not excited about soylent - I most definitely am, and hope to make it my lunch at work. At ~$4 a meal it's still a little too expensive for just a healthy filler until I get home (my current meal: beans/lentils and mixed veggies), but when it comes down a bit it will be great for me. Yet I feel some around here are anointing it as the end-all-be-all of healthy consumption, superior to natural options, which I'd argue is a bit premature. And I'm not educated enough to speculate on benefits of nutrients in plants vs. those industrially derived.
http://www.nutraingredients.com/Research/Omega-3s-have-no-be...