Soylent 1.5 Has Arrived | Hacker News Reader

Soylent 1.5 Has Arrived

blog.soylent.com

39 pointsph0rque26 comments

I'm disappointed they haven't fixed the low amount of fiber (16g/day). The Institute of Medicine recommends 38g/day in men [1].

They reduced fiber in v1.4 because it was causing flatulence in some people. This is probably because those people were already eating a very low-fiber (unhealthy) diet; the gut microbiome would adjust given more time.

I am very enthusiastic about Soylent and currently use it (with a fiber supplement). However, I can't in good conscience recommend it to other people without that caveat. I don't know of any evidence for safety of the fiber reduction.

1. https://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition...

I suppose a little metamucil could fix it? Or maybe kale? I realise thats beyond the point though.

How about a Soylent, but where you build your own from modules. The modules could have different nutrition profiles and you could mix them how you like. Maybe they'd taste different too.

I'm surprised there is no cholesterol.

"Soylent still contains no significant quantity of cholesterol"

I was under the impression that it was required in a healthy diet. Can we otherwise synthesize it ourselves?

You are correct on both counts. Cholesterol is absolutely required, both as cholesterol and a precursor to other compounds. However, there is a significant level of biosynthesis that occurs in most (if not all) of our cells.

It sounds like 1.5 has even more fat and very little protein. 1.4 has a macro breakdown of

    fat...... 24g x 9 = 216 kcal : 43%
    carbs.... 51g x 4 = 204 kcal : 40%
    protein.. 21g x 4 =  84 kcal : 17%

which seems crazy. I am trying out Soylent this summer for fun, but I also do P90X. Soylent's macros are not even close to compatible to the P90X nutrition guide. I shoot for fat/carb/protein to be 20%/40%/40% if I am cutting and 20%/60%/20% if am maintaining. I add quite a bit of whey protein to 1.4, but still my macros are way off. Anyway, fun to experiment but I don't think I can commit to Soylent for long as a P90X fan.

The (in my opinion) authoritative source [Institute of Medicine] recommends this for macros [1]:

Carbohydrates: 45-65%

Fats: 20-35%

Proteins: 10-35%

I don't think these macros are wildly unhealthy. Bodybuilders may require more protein. As you can see, 20% fat in the diet would definitely be at the lower end of the spectrum, while the current 43% is more than the upper range given.

However, the IOM recommendations assume you are eating fats in the typical diet; there are very few unhealthy fats in Soylent–my (non-evidence-based) opinion is that it's o.k. I would definitely prefer healthy fats to carbohydrates for a number of reasons.

1. https://www.iom.edu/Reports/2002/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-f...

Yes, they are good fats in Soylent. Fat is also a great at helping you feel satiated and doesn't mess with your blood sugar as much... I like that.

My authoritative source is The Arnold Blueprint (http://goo.gl/sM3Gg0) :)

Plenty of sources showing that healthy fats are good: try this site http://www.dietdoctor.com/science .

Absolutely! But 43%?!?

Whenever I see articles about Soylent, I can't help but wonder what is wrong with the products that more established companies make? E.g. the old Ross Laboratories, since renamed Abbott Nutrition.[1]

It's like some hipster said "I don't know anything about nutrition ... it can't be hard to do ... so here are my attempt(s) at keeping you alive".

That sounds harsh, but I'd really like to know what makes Soylent better.

Edit: I'm not interested knowing about "potato starch", "trehalose", or "isomaltulose". How about a plain English, big picture explanation.

[1] http://abbottnutrition.com

I think it is similar to the existing products. They have just tweaked it to be a bit less sweet and more neutral in flavor. They also have a slightly different nutrition profile. And they have successfully marketed to tech guys instead of the old people and hospital patients the other products are aimed at. I think they will also arrive at a lower price point.

They also have long and short term goals for the product. Short term, they want to deliver quick, cheap basic meals to techies. Long term, they want to be able to provide a basic staple food for the world's poor populations. Further, I think they want to eventually go to an all chemical product, with no "natural" (e.g., no oat flour) food products as ingredients.

TL;DR It's similar to the existing nutrition drinks, with some flavor and nutrition tweaks, different marketing, and different long and short term business goals.

Abbott Nutrition and other meal replacement drinks DO NOT provide you with a nutritionally complete meal, Soylent does. It is as simple as that.

>a 94% increase in Omega-6

touting this as a benefit has made me lose all trust in these guys. Omega-6 should be thought of as a negative in modern diets. We want the highest omega3:omeag6 ratio possible.

This underscores, painfully, the point that they're not nutritionists.

Thanks for catching that. This is completely absurd.

This is true, but their ratios are remaining relatively the same.

"Soylent 1.5 has a 94 percent increase in omega-3 fatty acids (DHA, ALA), a 92 percent increase in the omega-6 fatty acid, linoleic acid, and a 17 percent reduction in the already low saturated fat levels."

---

"A lower ratio of omega-6/omega-3 fatty acids is more desirable in reducing the risk of many of the chronic diseases of high prevalence in Western societies, as well as in the developing countries, that are being exported to the rest of the world."

Link to source for inquiring minds: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12442909

> The extraordinary efforts of our Operations Team have also led to great strides in manufacturing and distribution, ensuring that all orders now ship within 2-3 days.

That's nice to hear. Might look into official Soylent more, then.

There's also new recipe from Ambronite available:

http://ambronite.com/blogs/news/17962264-ambronite-v3-new-re...

It unfortunately includes carrageenan.

Would you mind explaining why that's unfortunate?

poligeenan, also known as degraded carrageenan, was shown in some studies to be carcinogenic. Some high profile foods had carrageenan and there was some bad publicity due to it.

I am not a doctor, but I do believe that carrageenan has been classified as perfectly safe by the FDA.

EDIT: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRS...

So that is probably why they specifically call out that the type of carrageenan in 1.5 is not the same type people have been complaining about.

> I am not a doctor, but I do believe that carrageenan has been classified as perfectly safe by the FDA.

I am not a doctor (nor, more to the point, a food & drug regulation expert), but I do not believe that FDA has a classification of "perfectly safe" that it applies to ingredients.

True. They do have a classification of Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS). Not the same thing as "perfectly safe", but I'm guessing that's what they probably meant.

I don't pretend to be a chemist, doctor, or nutritionist so I assume they have a good reason for adding it. They also seem to know about the bad publicity carrageenan has by calling out that it isn't poligeenan. I do wonder what the benefit of adding it is.

It seems like they still haven't gotten over the negative press and that this might not help them get more traction if it gets sensationalized.

Could you elaborate on why that's a problem?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com