One hidden assumption behind Soylent immediately jumps out at me: the assumption that it is healthy to ingest the same level of every nutrient constantly over time. In reality it's possible that our bodies are actually adapted to -- and benefit from -- variation in nutrient intake. We are not engineered industrial artifacts designed to run on constant engineered inputs. We are the product of a varied, highly textured environment and an evolutionary design process whose "reasoning" is quite alien from our own.
This is not only sensible, strength trainers already do this. My favorite is a cabbage+(beef/venison/lamb) curried stew. You could probably just sell this as microwaveable packets, but then it doesn't have the mystique of Soylent :)
Meat, rice/potatoes/oatmeal, veggies.
Over and over again.
It's how I eat. It's how my son eats. We don't get bored of it, we're both healthy.
Obsessing about making food "interesting" and "varied" all the time is the sign of something else.
Eating plain, simple, home-cooked food isn't as complicated, time-consuming and mundane as people think it is. Guests at my house marvel at how good our food is.
Foodie-ness and shit eating can very easily be countered by simple foods, cooked quickly, at home.
Everything else is just.. fodder for blog posts and journalism.
What’s wrong with enjoying to cook and eat really complicated stuff?
I don't have judgment or opinion of how other people choose to organize or live their lives, but I do wonder whether people are aware of what they are replacing, as they choose to replace it.
But, that's not to say that those who remain conservative aren't missing out on opportunity that otherwise might not be afforded to them, given the choice. Maybe you want to create a soylent/ individual dietary analytics startup with your biology PhD and CS buddies.
My idea behind eating real food is, I like to. A lot. It looks pretty, it smells pretty, and it tastes awesome, and it's about the only time I blab to whoever I am surrounded with in real life. Food can be more than food.
That said, I can see a strong argument for replacing one meal a day with Soylent. It's unlikely to be worse than what most people eat, and as part of an overall varied diet I'd be much less concerned about the unknown missing ingredients.
Negative side effects showing up within the next couple of years will kill Soylent. Why? Because their marketing says you don't need to eat anything else. That is a very steep claim, not much different than claiming your magical sugar pill prevents cancer.
If they made diminished claims I would speak less negatively. Certainly, as a nutritional supplement it would have strong and immediately measurable benefits in poor areas such as sub-Saharan Africa. Put a healthy 21 year old exclusively on it until they are 35? Ouch.
The leading cause of cancer is life. Everything causes long-term health problems, eventually. People are too risk-averse, How can you enjoy anything if you are perpetually concerned about long-term health risks?
There is another company called mealsquares that is planning on doing just that. I was going to sign up for the beta test but it currently isn't available in Canada.
I disagree on one point: this sounds delicious for breakfast.
Still, if it only replaces the mexican tortilla chips I eat regularly, I'll probably still come out ahead.
I've been toying with the idea of developing a "real food soylent" -- an easy-to-prepare-in-bulk stew or chili, with a base of real-food ingredient options that can be interchanged based on season, availability, and taste. The idea would be to develop a real food framework that could (in theory) constitute once's entire diet. I think of this idea as Soylent minus the hubris.