It would also give you quite a valuable item for trade.
1 Like
It would, but no one else is getting any sausage, and if they try, I’ll cut them, okay.
3 Likes
Dont you think she looks a bit stunted?
I dont get it. Why would anyone name a product soylent after the movie, unless they were trying to minimize sales?
It was the 50s.People were shorter back then as inches were being rationed during the war years.
2 Likes
Gastrointestinal mayhem is how you know it’s working!
2 Likes
Soylent, despite their marketing claims, is horribly un-nutritious. The ingredients are awful and the nutritional profile is worse then most meal replacements on the market, despite costing more.
If you like thin pancake batter that tastes like rancid canola oil because that is the main ingredient, then soylent is for you.
1 Like
Soylent pre-mixed liquid comes in, apparently a 14oz bottle. Ensure comes by 8 ounces. Soylent is 400cal a bottle. Ensure 220cal per bottle. So just on calories (and thats the most important thing) Ensure is more nutrient dense. Ensure lists far more micro nutrients on its label. Though the soylent website claims “25 micro nutrients (20%dv)”. Ensure claims 26, most of which are listed as at least 25%dv in around half the liquid. Soylent has more fiber, even adjusted for volume. But contains no cholesterol, a substance you need to live. They are roughly equivalent on protein. Ensure seems to have a bit more sodium (again you need this to live). Ensure has more carbs. But a lot of that may be down to having a lot more sugar.
https://ensure.com/nutrition-products/ensure-original#milk-chocolate
All in all I think you’re right. Soylent doesn’t have as much nutrition in it as Ensure. If you compared it to a diet shake maybe that wouldn’t be the case. A 24 pack of Ensure seems to run about 30-35 bucks. Which the same or less than Soylent at $34 for a 12 pack. But you get more actual Ensure at that price. And that’s before you look at an identical but cheaper generic.
AND Ensure has been medically tested for use as a meal replacement, including for quite a long time. Still isn’t recommended as a long term solution or major part of your diet.
3 Likes
wow…taking a look at the soylent “micro nutrients” and most of them are the least bio-available and cheapest forms of the minerals listed, industrial byproducts that can be cheaply sourced rather then forms ones body can actually absorb and utilize. It doesn’t matter if they put 100% of the USDA amount of something if they use forms with such low absorption rates.
Even kids sugar cereals pad out their nutrition labels with higher quality forms of micro nutrients, and they don’t claim to be a meal rather just a small, and least nutritious, part of a more complete breakfast.
seriously, look at that ingredient list…unbelievable. what a scam.
cheapest proteins, cheapest oils, cheapest minerals, cheapest everything…YUCK.
(cheapest meaning BOTH least expensive and lowest quality forms)
3 Likes
That’s been one of the major medical complaints about the stuff. If I remember its origin story its all down the tech wizard who basically did his research on what to include totally on the basis of what was cheapest online and a check list of what the body needs (from somewhere?)
Its unflavored, low grade Ensure for programmers.
3 Likes
Somebody saw food as a problem to be eliminated.
I’m completely baffled as I contemplate that this poor soul who has somehow never found the joy of eating real food.
- This is the culinary equivalent of a real doll, except it’s deliberately designed to be a plain white plastic pillow.
7 Likes
Well, you’ve triggered my repressed memories of lunching on those daily for some awful chunk of junior high school.
1 Like
I remember noticing that as a kid. Cereal commercials would end with “Part of this complete breakfast!” over an image of a bowl of the advertised cereal in milk, a glass of orange juice, a glass of milk, and two slices of buttered toast. What’s the toast for? Is there not enough grain in the cereal? If I’ve got the toast and a glass of milk and presumably a multivitamin, what’s the Cap’n Crunch bringing to the table? Aside from a shredded hard palate.
(That one even has a bowl of fruit, in case you’re not getting enough sugar from the OJ.)
4 Likes
Oh, Lard, we beseech thee.
1 Like
7 Likes
On what basis have you determined that the “ingredients are awful?” And perhaps you could name one of these meal replacements that gets you 650+ calories for $2.50?
i couldn’t find a single one that didn’t offer a cheaper calorie to cost ratio, pretty much all of them. do you know of any that cost more and deliver less? i couldn’t find any, at least among the major brands in the market.
price isn’t the most important factor though, i’d gladly pay more for a product with higher quality ingredients, better nutrition, and better taste.
The ingredient list on the soylent wiki. Look at their ingredients, they do list them. Every single ingredient without exception is the lowest quality source of said nutritional component, there is a reason that supplement manufacturers don’t use most of these forms of mineral complexes, because the body can’t either. the least bio-availabie mineral complex across the board, cheapest and lowest quality minerals and proteins and oils, etc.
If you print out the soylent nutritional label and take it to any nutritionist, after they are done crying, they can confirm what i’m saying. Seriously, every single ingredient is SOOOOOOO bad, the worst sources most byproducts of industrial manufacturing, I don’t see how anyone could argue that this is a meal or even a remotely health thing to consume.
REAL meal replacement products are formulated by nutritionists and put through actual studies, multiple times, before their formulations are approved.
1 Like
I think I’ll stick with Kendal Mint Cake.
3 Likes
No, it is not the most important thing. It might be for someone in a nursing home who is having trouble getting enough calories. But as a regular meal replacement, no, calories are a poor metric. Better metric is per calorie. As in sugars per calorie and protein per calorie. Even the somewhat improved Ensure Plus is way out of balance - 30% less fats, 26% less protein and 40% more sugars (yay diabeetus!) - compared to soylent 1.6. And don’t forget fiber. Ensure: zero grams of dietary fibre. Soylent: 7 grams per 500 calories or 28% of your RDA.
Pricewise, Ensure is also more expensive - the cheapest Ensure Plus I could find was $25 for 5500 calories, Soylent 1.6 is $21.23 for 5500 calories.
I think that’s unlikely. Especially given that it has zero fibre. A 0% fibre diet will have you shitting bricks after just a couple of days. Ensure intended to help sick people in nursing homes, not normal everyday consumption. But if you can provide a citation for those tests, I’m all ears.
Soylent’s not perfect. But it is definitely better than Ensure if you are a normal, healthy person.
So then you could name one, right? RIGHT?
Such as? Which specific sources are you refering to and what makes them “the lowest quality source?”
I’m sorry but it is not my job to prove you right. If you can’t be arsed to do anything more to back up your claims than theatrically express your feels, I’m going to dismiss you as an overly emotional child. For some reason soylent is really good at bringing that out in people.
I will, however, prove you wrong.
The primary source of protein in soylent is, surprise, soy. Like most macronutrients, protein is complicated. But the simplest benchmark for protein quality that we currently have is the Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score or PDCAAS for short. Soy gets the maximum possible PDCAAS score of 1.0 - which means it is very close to being a complete source of all the micronutrients that the human body needs from protein.
So, far from being “the lowest quality source” for protein, Soylent’s namesake is actually one of the highest quality sources.
