Soylent 1.4: a quick review
theverge.com
theverge.com
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.
We now mix individual servings in protein shakers instead of a blender or the larger pitcher. The smoothness is close to the blender pitcher.
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.
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.
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.
I also don't mix the big pitcher. I make shakes with frozen fruit and it's fucking delicious.
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.
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...
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumpy%27nut
In 2010, it was $60 for a 2 month supply for a child (~1 course of treatment).
High energy biscuits are 12 cents per 100g; micronutrient sprinkles are $3 per hundred sachets; plumpyDoz ration is 20 cents; http://wfp.org/nutrition/special-nutritional-products
This PDF lists the range of products but doesn't have prices: http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/co...
This website talks about what the different products are http://wfp.org/nutrition/how-wfp-fights-malnutrition
I've never seen any coherent reason to believe this, or even anything individual piece relevant to this that Soylent has innovated on.
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.
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.
Not exactly the height of the culinary arts, but then neither is Soylent.
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.
[0] http://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com/burger-king-prices/ [1] http://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com/kfc-prices/ [2] http://www.fastfoodmenuprices.com/mcDonalds-prices/
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).
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+.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Now we've modifed that a bit and some doctors think that saturated fat isn't as terrible as it was and that sugar is the actual problem: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2013/10October/Pages/Saturated-fat-li...
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.
[1] I'm thinking the high potassium, and low sodium could lower high blood pressure?
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.
I wonder if they are now claiming an artificial shortage to try and continue to sustain the illusion.
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]
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.
I always wonder how many of those phytonutrients can stand up to hydrochloric acid and also get absorbed into the bloodstream.
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.
Surely the important thing is if you get X from Soylent? Which you completely ignore.
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 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 would like to apologize to the entire HN community.