
Soylent 1.5 Has Arrived - ph0rque
http://blog.soylent.com/post/120465411252/soylent-1-5-has-arrived
======
et2o
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...](https://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/DRI_Macronutrients.pdf)

~~~
brador
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.

------
xutopia
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?

~~~
et2o
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.

------
waynecochran
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.

~~~
et2o
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...](https://www.iom.edu/Reports/2002/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-
Energy-Carbohydrate-Fiber-Fat-Fatty-Acids-Cholesterol-Protein-and-Amino-
Acids.aspx)

~~~
waynecochran
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](http://goo.gl/sM3Gg0)) :)

------
PhantomGremlin
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](http://abbottnutrition.com)

~~~
jimmydddd
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.

------
maerF0x0
>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.

~~~
rafeed
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](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12442909)

------
gwern
> 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.

------
gola
There's also new recipe from Ambronite available:

[http://ambronite.com/blogs/news/17962264-ambronite-v3-new-
re...](http://ambronite.com/blogs/news/17962264-ambronite-v3-new-recipe-
launched)

------
gellerb
It unfortunately includes carrageenan.

~~~
mejari
Would you mind explaining why that's unfortunate?

~~~
tuckerman
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...](http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=172.620)

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.

~~~
tvmalsv
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.

