It should be taken into consideration that the article is a hit piece, and many of Stella's comments seem to miss the mark or are totally irrelevant. For example, it doesn't matter if he's not using "real" olive oil; many people live fine without ever tasting the stuff, but it does matter that olive oil is [almost] totally devoid of omega-3 fatty acids. Olive oil is not a complete source of fats! Living on fast food isn't cheap, but who cares?

It's as though Stella Matsovis decided to respond from the standpoint of a forum troll!

Also, iron deficiency won't show up in three days, obviously, but what's not addressed is that he claims the problem disappeared after he started taking an iron supplement -- the real surprise! ...come to think of it this latter point makes me want to doubt the veracity of Rob Rhinehart's claims in toto: he may not have even been eating Soylent, or he may have changed the recipe in a more obvious way, or... y'know. That's more concerning than the simple idea of a meal replacement powder. Ditto: his claimed caloric intake (1000 kcal/day?) should by all rights have killed him by now. Even calorie restriction true-believers usually aim for 1400.

I made an earlier post in this thread defending the general idea and possibility of Soylent. I hadn't looked into it with serious interest until just now.

My new concern: his claims about Soylent appear to be simply impossible: iron deficiency appearing in three days, ridiculously low calorie consumption, etc. They may, of course, be artistic license in the construction of a narrative. I would like to believe that his physician is already aware of this experiment.

>The author has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to protein digestion and assimilation.

Does it really matter? As long as he's not actually eating hydrolysate [isolated amino acids] (which would probably be rather painful!), most protein powders are, shall we say, mediocre at worst.

Addendum: the most obvious regulation he's breaking is false advertising. Soylent is [probably] fine (at least mediocre) despite everything, but billing it as the gateway to perfect health is, uh, silly.

From what I can tell, the Soylent team appears to be pursuing their goals in an admirably scientific fashion. Although there's quite a bit of work to do, I recall an article from a couple of days ago on HN that was talking about the wonderful work the big guys are doing. This quote from General Mills is priceless:

>In a public comment posted on the FTC website, our friends at General Mills pointed out that under the IWG guidelines, the most commonly consumed foods in the US would be considered unhealthy. Specifically, according to General Mills, “of the 100 most commonly consumed foods and beverages in America, 88 would fail the IWG’s proposed standards.” [1]

I understand your disagreement, I disagree with your ad hominem attack and think that there may be some merit to the Soylent team and their claims, especially when taken in light of the General Mills comments.

[1]http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/05/19/de...

There is a world of difference between "unsafe" and "unhealthy." I am not claiming that frozen dinners are healthy. Far from it - I avoid them like the plague. However, they are not going to land you in the hospital in the short term.

> think that there may be some merit to the Soylent team and their claims

The fundamental issue is that statements like "there may be some merit" might be sufficient for trying an iPhone app. It is NOT sufficient for trying a radically new diet like this one.

To you. It's your opinion, not mine. You could say "The FDA would strongly condemn something like this" or "I think this is unsafe" but you can't say it is not sufficient for everyone just because you feel that way.

You can't make blanket claims that apply to all of humanity; being an absolutist only works if you're a Sith Lord.

Except Soylent are doing exactly that.

But I do appreciate your point and you did make me scratch my head when I first read it.

Let me point you to a randomly chosen scientific study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20856266

Now you point me to something similar for this new wonder food.

I've seen this posted a few times and I'm having trouble seeing it as thorough. Her complaint on his caloric restriction claims contained a link to relevant research, that was adequate. Her other complaint, which was about his understanding of protein digestibility, contained little detail. These were the only claims she addressed with more than denial.