From the parent's comment:

> I think many people approach Soylent as a way to solve some of their problems, but people should realize it won't be and can't be.

I'm not sure the parent's tone indicated that they were "mad" at Soylent and honestly your response to it is fairly insensitive.

> Meal replacement shakes have been around for, what, 2+ decades now?

Reading the copy on the Soylent website suggests that it saves you time. If meal replacement shakes have been around, then what is Soylent's value proposition and what makes it different?

> If meal replacement shakes have been around, then what is Soylent's value proposition and what makes it different?

Marketing. Initially based around the idea of replacing all food with it (which even the founder stopped doing during his initial trial).

It's tapping into a lot of sentiments around food as a "problem" or "nuisance", where a lot of the other shakes on the market have gone for the health and fitness angle, or the "I'm too important and busy to sit down and have breakfeast so I'll down a shake on the go" angle.

But it's not bringing much more than marketing.

It's: "Look! I'm busy! I'm important! I eat special food!"

Are you unwilling to consider that there are people for whom food is not a priority and is actually a nuisance? Like say cleaning one's home - which some enjoy and some find a chore.

Meal replacement shakes like Ensure are meant to be supplemental to food. Soylent markets their product as ALL you have to eat, if you so desire. That could have a very different outcome on someone's health. The OP was giving his experiences with it.

> Meal replacement shakes like Ensure are meant to be supplemental to food.

I wish people would stop saying this.

There are many products, some are Ensure brands, that can be used as sole source nutrition products.

They don't market themselves like that to the general public because they're big companies with lots of lawyers who are cautious about that kind of claim.

What Ensure products are meant to be all you ever eat?

Except Soylent marketed itself as a replacement. All those shakes you talk about are aimed at supplementing. They weren't stupid enough to tell people to live on it because of the legal liability.

I agree Soylent used irresponsible marketing.

But many of those other products can be used as sole source of nutrition.

EG fortisip: http://www.nutricia.ie/products/view/fortisip

> Fortisip is a Food for Special Medical Purposes for use under medical supervision. Fortisip is a nutritionally complete, 1.5kcal/ml, ready to drink, milk shake style nutritional supplement, for the management of disease related malnutrition. Fortisip can be used to supplement the diet of patients unable to meet their nutritional requirements from other foods, or used as a sole source of nutrition. Fortisip is available in 200ml bottles, with a flexible straw attached, in 8 flavours: Neutral, Vanilla, Chocolate, Toffee, Banana, Orange, Strawberry and Tropical Fruits.

Ensure original: https://abbottnutrition.com/ensure-original

> For interim sole-source nutrition.

How is it irresponsible marketing?

Oh right, we already had this discussion. At least they got upgraded from "unethical marketing" to "irresponsible marketing". But how long can you continue to claim that the company engages in irresponsible marketing based on (allegedly) exaggerated claims during a Kickstarter?

Hence my use of the past tense "used", not present tense "uses".