That's the best counterargument you have? "Scary" chemical names? I mean, ... really?

I quite assure you that if I listed all of the compounds of "Pasteurized Whole Milk, Pasteurized Cream, Live Active Cultures, Cream" using standard chemistry nomenclature, the list would look far more intimidating to the average layperson.

My argument isn't scary chemical names. It's that you face a bad omega 3:6 ratio. I already said that in the first comment.

> My argument isn't scary chemical names.

Isn't it? You're the one bandying about phrases like "...strange synthetic meal..." and touting the ingredient lists of one meal over another.

As for bad omega 3:6 ratio, that's easily solved by eating something else that contains omega-3. Nobody says that Soylent is the only thing a person is permitted to eat.

> Nobody says that Soylent is the only thing a person is permitted to eat.

But it's supposed to be able to be used that way, if one wants. AFAIK it doesn't warn to get omega-3 from time to time.

> Nobody says that Soylent is the only thing a person is permitted to eat.

It has been marketed as a sole source of nutrition, and every conversation about Soylent on HN has people claiming it can be used as a sole source of nutrition.

To be fair to Soylent, many of the ingredients listed are simply vitamin and mineral sources. They have scary-sounding names, but are not scary things.

I'm not convinced your alternative is actually more healthful, nor do I believe it contains the vitamins or minerals you'd need for it to act as a reasonable meal replacement. From a macro perspective at least, I don't see anything particularly wrong with Soylent's product.

> I didn't know anyone was afraid of dietary cholesterol in 2017.

You didn't know, or you don't think they should be? The jury is still out on dietary cholesterol, and there are plenty of people, some on this very forum, who consider it a health hazard.

I'm aware of recent research suggesting it isn't all that bad, but there's no telling if that's going to be reversed as well in a couple of years.

The truth here is actually a bit more nuanced. Dietary cholesterol isn't universally bad/ok. Some people have defective cholesterol metabolism, and dietary cholesterol can cause them issues. Most people have a cholesterol metabolism that achieves homeostasis even in the presence of dietary cholesterol. As a result, you can create a study where dietary cholesterol looks bad/good just by tweaking your study population.

For reference, dietary cholesterol is most often a problem for people of certain African, south Asian, Mesoamerican and Mediterranean populations that historically consumed limited animal products, or low fat animal products such as warm-water fish. People of central/northern European/Asian descent are typically fine.

Is there any study that shows any adverse effects of dietary cholesterol in a ketogenic diet?

AFAIK, the jury is still out on high far does, too.

> I copied and pasted from their website, they capitalized everything, not me

Feel free to lowercase it yourself. HN readers will appreciate it!

Here you go:

filtered water, soy protein isolate, maltodextrin, high oleic sunflower oil, isomaltulose, canola oil, rice starch, oat fiber, isomaltooligosaccharide, soy lecithin, potassium chloride, calcium phosphate, magnesium phosphate, natural & artificial flavors, dipotassium phosphate, salt, choline chloride, gellan gum, sodium ascorbate, dl-alpha-tocopheryl acetate, ferrous gluconate, zinc sulfate, d-calcium pantothenate, niacinamide, sucralose, thiamine hydrochloride, copper gluconate, manganese sulfate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, vitamin a palmitate, riboflavin, chromium chloride, biotin, folic acid, sodium molybdate, sodium selenite, phytonadione, potassium iodide, vitamin b12, vitamin d. contains: soy

Vim v$~ FTW!

Ah you're right. Sublime text can do it in a second anyway.

Thanks!

If you aren't a baby cow, is lactose intolerant or is a vegan you might not want all that dairy that you are proposing.