
Soylent Coffee: Nootropics, fat, carbs, protein - johncoogan
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/08/if-youve-been-waiting-for-soylent-coffee-your-wait-is-over/
======
egypturnash
"...here's what makes this campaign great in my estimation - each sample of
Coffiest contains three milligrams of a simple alkaloid. Nothing harmful. But
definitely habit-forming. After ten weeks the customer is hooked for life. It
would cost him at least five thousand dollars for a cure, so it's simpler for
him to go right on drinking Coffiest - three cups with every meal and a pot
beside his bed at night, just as it says on the jar."

\- Fred Pohl and C.M.Kornbluth, "The Space Merchants", 1952.

I am glad to see that Soylent is continuing to name their products after Sci-
Fi Future Foodstuffs Of Dubious Safety.

------
chjohasbrouck
One problem with products like Soylent is that the nutrition label is used for
marketing, and as a result they consciously engineer the product to optimize
for that.

Nutrition facts labels and recommended daily intakes vary by country, and
they're backed up by a lot of bad science and guessing games.

Consider that the USDA recently lifted their recommended maximum intake of
cholesterol from 300mg/day (1.5 eggs/day) to no upper limit at all (after 50
years), or that study after study has failed to find any significant benefit
from taking daily multivitamins (and to the contrary has found that taking too
many, or the wrong kind, can cause liver damage), or that every sugary
breakfast cereal and energy drink would seem quite healthy if all you looked
at was the nutrition facts label.

I don't think nutrition facts labels are particularly meaningful, so a product
sold almost entirely on the basis of how strictly it conforms to those
government recommendations isn't of much interest to me.

If you're Soylent, you also have to lean heavily on government recommendations
as a form of insurance against lawsuits. There's a lot of risk in encouraging
people to eat only your food for every meal of the day, and being able to tell
a judge that your product closely adhered to government recommendations is
undoubtedly helpful in various litigation scenarios, but I don't think that
necessarily forms a good foundation for what people should be eating.

~~~
antisthenes
> that every sugary breakfast cereal and energy drink would seem quite healthy
> if all you looked at was the nutrition facts label.

That is factually false, since their labels do quite accurately reflect that
they consist of nothing more than carbs (and a bit of protein, for some
cereals). I'm not sure how one would come to a conclusion that energy drinks
are good for you from their nutrition label, unless you're assuming sugars,
artificial colorings, taurine and caffeine are all healthy compounds.

~~~
chjohasbrouck
Those are just two product categories well-known for their manipulation of the
nutrition facts label, and there are definitely millions of consumers that
think they confer health benefits as a result of how the nutrition facts label
was manipulated.

Most people think VitaminWater is healthy, and feel like they're doing
something good for their body when they drink it. They'd probably be more
discerning and come to a better conclusion about that product if you
completely removed its nutrition facts label.

~~~
unprepare
thats because of how the products are marketed, not the nutrition label.

people think vitamin water is healthy because its called vitamin water.
because the flavors are called things like "immune booster" "essential"
"multi-v" and because they give descriptions on exactly what ailment this
drink is designed to combat.

putting 1/2 cup as the serving size for ice cream is manipulating a nutrition
label to sell more product, putting truthful information on the label and
advertising your product as health food anyways is just dishonest marketing.

------
matthewwiese
I'm glad to hear Soylent has broadened their product category with this
addition. It seems (to me at least) to be a perfect solution for a morning
routine; when we usually have a cup of coffee with breakfast, why not just
roll that into Soylent and "save some time" (negligible imo but still a
consideration) not to mention it will hopefully improve the taste tenfold.

Ever since I've heard about Soylent I've wanted the company to do well -- I
love cooking but oftentimes when I'm hungry I hate having to do prep work and
cleanup because it feels like I'm procrastinating the work I actually have to
do (and I can't skip eating because being hungry while working just gives sub
par performance).

I can't afford Soylent consistently as a student and so have used soy milk and
other [gross] concoctions in the past; but, I might have to use this news as
inspiration (also taking note from u/sxates to stop by Trader Joes and give
their concentrate a shot).

~~~
toasterlovin
I have great news for you: you don't need to afford Soylent because healthy,
cheap, easy to prepare food already exists. Whole milk is my favorite, but if
you can't handle milk, cheese, nuts, and yogurt are all zero prep time and
much cheaper per calorie than Soylent.

~~~
Kalium
Those also mostly require storage infrastructure not always so readily
available - I've lived out of a hotel room with no fridge before. Maybe the
person is lactose-intolerant - some friends of mine are. Maybe they are OK
with the cost increment for the amount of time it buys them.

Or possibly they simply make personal choices about what they put in their own
personal bodies differently than you.

~~~
toasterlovin
You can always push storage infrastructure off onto grocery stores. Stop by
one in the morning, buy your calories for the day, eat them throughout the
day.

I get that not everybody is me. I'm trying to provide the viewpoint that we
don't need a new product to solve the issue of healthy, zero prep food. Plus,
the existing options are way, way cheaper per calorie, which is a pretty
important consideration, since most people seem to be resource constrained
(including me).

~~~
Kalium
Not everyone has the option of putting infrastructure off onto a cheap,
convenient, quick, readily available grocery store either. I've personally
been in situations where such was not available. Plus, doing that is almost
certain to nullify the intended cost advantages and impose extra time costs.

The viewpoint you endeavor to provide is one we are all aware of. After all,
it's the default that Soylent exists to provide an alternative to. Myself, I
found Soylent incredibly useful for caloric restriction in ways that whole
milk, cheese, nuts, grocery stores, and the attendant required infrastructure
are not.

~~~
toasterlovin
I get that you like Soylent. More power to you. But I don't think most people
are already aware of the alternatives to Soylent and how much cheaper they
are. For instance, you said, in response to my comment about buying food from
a grocery store every day, "doing that is almost certain to nullify the
intended cost advantages".

According to Soylent's website, their drink is $2.69 per 400 calories. That
same amount of money buys you 1 gallon of whole milk at the grocery store,
which is 2400 calories, or a half gallon of organic whole milk, which is 1200
calories.

The numbers are similar for nuts, cheese and yogurt. And I haven't even gotten
into eating olive oil, which can get you another 2x reduction in cost per
calorie over milk.

That is a 3x - 12x decrease in food cost. In other words, that choice alone
can make or break a household's monthly budget. And if food storage is an
issue, the savings will pay for a fridge in short order.

~~~
Kalium
Any real grocery store near me will set you back $5-$6 for a gallon of organic
whole milk. That's without factoring in that neither of them are along my
commute, adding time.

I think most people who are willing to consider Soylent are well aware of the
costs of the customary diets they have been eating for many years. I also
think that most people who are willing to consider Soylent are looking to
optimize differently from you.

~~~
toasterlovin
Several things:

1\. I know that organic whole milk is more expensive. I mentioned it in my
response. It's still 3x less expensive per calorie than Soylent.

2\. I understand that going to the grocery store is a non-starter for you, but
that is not the case for the vast majority of North Americans, who already
source a huge portion of their calories from grocery stores (and have
refrigeration). Perhaps being able to get the main component of your diet from
a grocery store is a benefit for many people, not a drawback.

3\. You keep suggesting that perhaps I am unaware that other people have
different priorities than me. But I'm not. I was not addressing all users of
Soylent. Instead, I responded to somebody who said that Soylent was too
expensive for them by mentioning an alternative which has more or less the
same benefits as Soylent, but which is much less expensive.

4\. Perhaps there are people interested in Soylent who are trying to optimize
differently than _you_. Maybe somebody has zero extra time and is spending a
small fortune on delivered lunches at work, so they're interested in something
which is just as convenient but much less expensive. Maybe they don't care
that they have to buy supplies at the grocery store (or, crazy enough, maybe
they would prefer that to having to remember to replenish online). Maybe
they're not fully thought out on the subject yet, but they've heard about this
Soylent thing. Maybe the information I shared would be useful to somebody like
that.

------
Applejinx
Wow. That name is literally from Frederik Pohl's 'The Space Merchants'. Now
that's cojones (Pohl died in 2013). I see I'm not the first to notice this,
but it's worth noticing.

I'd try the stuff, if they didn't put 1,6-Dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-β-D-
fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-α-D-galactopyranoside in it. (the brand name
is 'sucralose'). That stuff gets everywhere, but I have a nasty reaction to it
and really don't appreciate the company lobbying to have it treated like some
kind of safe 'sucra' or 'ose'.

~~~
ac29
>if they didn't put 1,6-Dichloro-1,6-dideoxy-β-D-
fructofuranosyl-4-chloro-4-deoxy-α-D-galactopyranoside in it.

Some people prefer it over
(2R,3R,4S,5S,6R)-2-[(2S,3S,4S,5R)-3,4-dihydroxy-2,5-bis(hydroxymethyl)oxolan-2-yl]oxy-6-(hydroxymethyl)oxane-3,4,5-triol
(IUPAC name for sucrose aka table sugar).

There isn't really any purpose in using full chemical names in informal
discussion. Most organic chemicals are pretty complicated, so using the full
names just makes it seem like you are trying to scare people who don't know
any better.

------
ben_jones
People take sides on Soylent but I'm so glad a company like this exists to
just attack the notion of what a meal is. It has such an impact on so many
parts of our society including many of the glaring issues like poverty and
nutrition.

Personally (and I've tried it) I didn't like their initial strategy of being a
100% meal replacement and feel strongly like it makes a great supplement. I
think their new products are more aligned with this and will likely renew my
subscription today.

------
thefastlane
referring to caffeine as a nootropic seems to be broadening the term
'nootropic' quite a lot. am i misunderstanding what a nootropic is?

edit: i'm referring to the quote saying "So we have two mild nootropics" which
i read as counting caffeine as one of them

~~~
the_watcher
Caffeine seems to be generally accepted by the nootropic community as falling
into that category. There's at least as much clinical evidence of caffeine
improving cognitive function as many nootropics, so it seems reasonable to me.

The list of nootropics is somewhat fluid, as much of the science behind them
is either recent or currently occurring.

------
vinchuco
Sausages are a ground mix of meats.

Is there an equivalent for a mix of vegetables, fruits, grains, meat, etc? It
would make more sense as a complete cheap meal than a powder, except for being
perishable.

It brings to mind the 'diet problem' [http://www.neos-guide.org/content/diet-
problem](http://www.neos-guide.org/content/diet-problem) for which, if
optimizing for price only, often suggests that you eat mainly potatoes.

~~~
nradov
Scott Adams developed something like that (without meat) as the Dilberito. It
failed in the market.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilberito](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilberito)

~~~
Frenchgeek
Dilberito : the bad tasting food that will make sure you will remain forever
alone. I guess the product stayed too true to the comic...

------
sxates
I've been mixing Trader Joes Coffee Concentrate with Soylent for breakfast for
months. This seems like a no-brainer.

~~~
crypticlizard
Care to comment on the flavour?

~~~
itake
I have just started doing it with Starbucks coffee + 1.6. I really like it. It
tastes way better than fatty creamers.

------
etaty
In Europe, you can try : [https://www.joylent.eu/](https://www.joylent.eu/)
[https://www.joylent.eu/products/wake-up-
joylent](https://www.joylent.eu/products/wake-up-joylent) And they also sale
bars now!

There are other competitor like Queal or Huel

~~~
bambax
I did try Joylent. I managed to drink one "meal" but couldn't go through the
second one. It's the most disgusting thing I have ever encountered.

I eat a lot of things many people would consider unsavory, including snails,
oysters, cheese, etc., things way past their expiration date, and very bad
(cheap) Chinese food. But this, no.

I had bought 40 bags of the stuff that sit unused in my cupboard.

Maybe Soylent is way different, I don't know, I didn't try it. But a small
pill would be fantastic.

~~~
zackbloom
A pill is probably pretty close to impossible. Even pure fat only has 9
calories per gram. 2000 calories is about 8 fl oz which you could
(theoretically) drink, but would be a whole lot of pills.

~~~
bambax
8 fl oz = 25 cl, size of one serving of a small coke. That would be drinkable
in 2-3 gulps so even if it's disgusting it's manageable... Maybe...

------
yladiz
I guess it's good that they're branching out beyond their initial Soylent
brand and trying to get more consumers, especially breakfast users who are
used to coffee, but I still don't appreciate the notion that this is somehow
better or more efficient than making a meal for yourself, when it's not been
proven that it's any better (and may be worse, it's hard to know because it's
so new). To me the Soylent brand just seems like a startup version of the
supplement shakes that I saw my mom drink when I was a kid, and marketed to a
different demographic.

------
MicroBerto
Once again, Soylent's team is relatively behind the curve in terms of
supplementation, quality, and "dietary trends" (some of us just call them
_fads_ ).

But one thing they sure get right is how to market to a niche: all you guys
and readers of tech news sites.

It'll be successful, but let's not make it out to be something pioneering,
because it's most definitely not.

Anyone who's doing full-Soylent really needs to read this massive meta-
analysis:

[http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4490](http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4490)

~~~
danielvinson
I don't understand what that study has anything to do with this. Their
conclusion was that fruit and vegetable consumption reduces risk of death and
does not mention anything about the why the fruits and vegetables reduce risk
OR that said benefits are not reproducible through other nutritional systems.

~~~
MicroBerto
Because we don't _know_ why. Just like we didn't understand omega fatty ratios
a couple decades ago.

So this has everything to do with it. There's more to diet than numbers, yet
if you're on a pure Soylent diet, you're clearly not getting some relatively-
unknown things that are almost conclusively beneficial to your body.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Eat your fruits and vegetables or,
statistically speaking, your cardiovascular system will eventually suffer.

Soylent's marketing puts a lot of otherwise smart people at serious long-term
health risk.

~~~
kbd
> yet if you're on a pure Soylent diet... Soylent's marketing puts... people
> at serious long-term health risk.

Even Rosa Labs doesn't recommend a pure Soylent diet. I liked Soylentconor's
comment on reddit the other day, pointing out that the right way to look at
Soylent is that it's "just food"[1]

I'm obviously not arguing Soylent is perfect, but it's almost certainly better
than what most people eat most of the time, and humanity got here subsisting
on, on average, much worse.

> Eat your fruits and vegetables or, statistically speaking, your
> cardiovascular system will eventually suffer.

You seem awfully certain given that you can't say what "relatively unknown
[but] conclusively beneficial" things Soylent is missing.

[1]
[https://www.reddit.com/r/soylent/comments/4wowtp/why_is_that...](https://www.reddit.com/r/soylent/comments/4wowtp/why_is_that_other_soylent_like_products_dont/d68rbrm)

~~~
MicroBerto
> You seem awfully certain given that you can't say what "relatively unknown
> [but] conclusively beneficial" things Soylent is missing.

Some ideas proposed with several sources cited:

* Antioxidants and polyphenols from fruits and vegetables – like Vitamin C, carotenoids, and flavonoids – have been linked to lower cardiovascular disease rates. They’re known to prevent cholesterol and other lipids from oxidizing in the arteries.[14]

* Concentrations of another group of antioxidants, alpha carotene and beta carotene, are also elevated when eating fruits and vegetables[15,16]

* Fruits and vegetables slightly decrease blood pressure[16,17]

* Fruits and vegetables typically contain good doses of magnesium and potassium, both already linked to lower mortality rates[18,19,20]

* Vitamin C, carotenoids, lycopene, and other phytochemicals/phytonutrients (likely some that we haven’t yet discovered) were explained as the success from one mortality study[21]

([https://blog.priceplow.com/vegetables](https://blog.priceplow.com/vegetables))

Lots of that stuff is not in Soylent. It's not very difficult to be awfully
certain in my confidence in eating fruits and vegetables.

Again. Soylent's marketing has been extremely dangerous, and your link
reinforces that point. Their haphazard marketing yielded unintended
consequences, and they shouldn't be rewarded for it.

~~~
kbd
Your argument seems to be "vegetables have things your body needs. Soylent is
not vegetables, therefore Soylent doesn't have these things". I am far from a
nutrition expert, but from some googling it sounds like a lot of what you
bring up, carotenoids, flavonoids, etc. are converted by the body to vitamin
A, which Soylent includes. It also includes magnesium, potassium, vitamin C,
and so on.

~~~
MicroBerto
> from some googling it sounds like a lot of what you bring up, carotenoids,
> flavonoids, etc. are converted by the body to vitamin A

Are you willing to bet your life that this is all they do? Are you willing to
bet your life that those general hypotheses are the _only_ reasons why fruits
and vegetables make nearly everyone live longer?

Do you think these engineers truly understand food, or is it possible that
there are things we don't know, just like we didn't understand omegas decades
ago?

I don't claim to fully know what's going on when I eat berries. Nobody does.
But I see extremely strong statistics showing one thing, and Soylent has been
marketed in the complete opposite direction, and that is dangerous.

Honestly I don't care what people do. But I care what is marketed to
inexperienced consumers.

------
tener
I saw the photo of two guys standing in the lab. Somehow I thought it is from
Breaking Bad or some other show (I'm not watching it so wasn't sure...). Then
I read the description:

> Soylent scientists at work in the food labs refining Coffiest's flavor.

Well, not even close.

~~~
wetmore
It is from Breaking Bad, the caption is a joke.

------
jostmey
They had to use a scene from "Breaking Bad" as a joke because they probably
have no scientist, laboratories, or equipment. That's no joke.

------
desireco42
I like that they are experimenting, seems expensive coffee like beverage.

------
diyseguy
Soylent explains all the missing over 40yo engineers

