Here's what they have to say about this [1]:
>There are some public concerns about high consumption of soy, but Rhinehart is quick to dismiss them. "Because we’re not using whole soy, we’re just using the protein isolate…the isoflavone levels are much lower than what they would be in soy flour or tofu. There are some levels, but they’re well below any that have shown to have an effect," he explained. "There was somewhat specious research in the past on what impact soy can have on testosterone levels and those have been widely debunked. We’ve certainly done our research here and we’ll be posting our analysis on the Web as well."
[1]http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/soylent-2-0-is-coming...
We should be skeptical of any food stuff the purports to be nutritionally near perfect, but Soylent looks like its on track.
Are you talking about Soylent or people criticising Soylent?
Because, for a company that's supposed to have done all tue research, they've made a couple of errors.
That might not sound like much but liquid feeds are not new; there are plenty of people that have experience in liquid feeds; so there's not much excuse to make the mistakes Soylent made.
Burn them!
Both of those are dangerous, scumbag, claims. Soylent has not retracted those claims. They did quietly drop them though.
[0] http://examine.com/faq/is-soy-good-or-bad-for-me/
Ps thanks sol (the owner of examine)
Also the article says things like: "[lowers] LDL and Total Cholesterol" but doesn't dive into the fact that lowering your total cholesterol is bad for your health. Since there is good and bad cholesterols, if you lower everything you're damaging your health (see the 1980s obsession with lowering all cholesterols for example). But, yes, lowering LDL alone is good as far as we know.
I don't think day to day people need to be actively avoiding soy, or heck even not having the occasional soy based meal. But we're talking about a meal replacement diet based almost entirely on soy, that's a big deal, and the health implications cannot just be glossed over.
If anything your link has made more more concerned about the impact of a purely Soylent diet on all groups except postmenopausal women who may benefit.
"The protein source is soy, which contains an ideal ratio of amino acids for excellent nutrition ..."
You can argue the merits of one protein source over another, but I think to declare any non-animal protein source as "ideal" in any way would require some evidence to be presented. Unfortunately, it shows that they are glossing over the hard decisions that have to be made in creating a product like this with so much empty marketing-speak.
These guys don't quite know what they're talking about. Or there smart and playing the sheep like a fiddle.
My fear is that these guys are laughing their way to the bank suckering people into this stuff.