Subject-reported mood on (n=1) trials were last considered scientific circa Sigmund Freud. And we don't know what his regular diet was.

Different people react differently to different foods, even the same food at different times or under different conditions. His remarks there read a bit like some stuff I've read by the proponents of, variously, vegetarian, paleo and keto diets.

I don't eat breakfast, as a rule. I used to get peckish in the mid-morning, now I don't get hungry until lunchtime. Not being hungry helps me concentrate. I hardly see this as the basis of a new way of life.

So, are those reasons daft?

In my case I have a specific purpose for that meal: maximal protein per total calories. And I'm not replacing all meals with it. I tried once, out of curiosity. I lasted a day.

I hear you and indeed, if we're to believe his claim, the benefit would be substantial. Yet, I don't think this detail is what jacques_chester was referencing in his comment. It's difficult to dispute Rob's claim without either having experienced the benefits ourselves or having an authority back him up.

We're left to wonder exactly what Rob was cooking for himself when he got off the juice. I support Soylent, but I don't believe you necessarily have to feel this way with only access to mostly whole foods.

Whether or not you enjoy cooking is irrelevant, especially if we stand to gain all that Soylent promises. Soylent won't deprive anyone of the option to cook a meal. If anything it may simply add more value to the act of cooking.

Many are suggesting that the only reasons being given have to do with saving time but that is far from the case. I spent 2 minutes finding one passage (of many) that discusses 8 or 10 non-efficiency reasons. Yes, they are self-reported. Yes, they need to be verified. Yes, there could be other ways to get there or other factors involved. But these are other, very good reasons being supplied for the exercise.