Soylent: Operations Update(blog.soylent.me)
blog.soylent.me
Soylent: Operations Update
http://blog.soylent.me/post/59466009067/operations-update
98 comments
You gave the reason yourself: The existing market is segmented, and none of those markets shouts 'average HN user'.
Compare the marketing/segmentation of the existing products:
Senior citizens: For old people / a worse replacement for regular meals / medical.
Women losing weight: I'm fat / unhealthy / a worse replacement for regular meals / temporary, once I've lost the weight I'll switch back.
Bodybuilders: DUDE, CHECK OUT MY LATS. I ALWAYS DO 10 x 10 DP SETS AND THEN SLAM DOWN A PROTEIN SHAKE. DUUUUUDE.
Soylent: For many people, on many occasions, food is a hassle, especially when trying to eat well. It allows one to enjoy the health benefits of a well balanced diet with less effort and cost.
Now which of these is going to attract, and which is going to repel, the stereotypical HN user?
Of course these are stereotypes, but this is marketing, and segmenting often uses stereotypes to push people into making different purchasing decisions: As an average HN user, I'm going to feel weird/wrong buying a women's weight loss shake, or a senior citizens medical food, or a gym expert's protein shake, but I'm going to feel great buying Soylent, because I fit into the marketing.
My point is that none of the existing products on the market market all these points: * An equal replacement for food, instead of a worse substitute on one axis or another (at least nutritionally); * An all the time replacement, not just for a specific purpose; * Market direct to the consumer (this seems to be the issue with some of the replacements used in hospitals).
Now, whether Soylent actually meets these claims, or whether the stereotypes are actually relevant to the contents of the products themselves, is largely irrelevant at this point. This is marketing, and HN users are gullible to it like everyone else. (Personally, I'm rooting for Soylent)
Re the name, which a bunch of people who seriously fail to see why that name: because it is rebellious in exactly the way average HN users are suckers for.
Compare the marketing/segmentation of the existing products:
Senior citizens: For old people / a worse replacement for regular meals / medical.
Women losing weight: I'm fat / unhealthy / a worse replacement for regular meals / temporary, once I've lost the weight I'll switch back.
Bodybuilders: DUDE, CHECK OUT MY LATS. I ALWAYS DO 10 x 10 DP SETS AND THEN SLAM DOWN A PROTEIN SHAKE. DUUUUUDE.
Soylent: For many people, on many occasions, food is a hassle, especially when trying to eat well. It allows one to enjoy the health benefits of a well balanced diet with less effort and cost.
Now which of these is going to attract, and which is going to repel, the stereotypical HN user?
Of course these are stereotypes, but this is marketing, and segmenting often uses stereotypes to push people into making different purchasing decisions: As an average HN user, I'm going to feel weird/wrong buying a women's weight loss shake, or a senior citizens medical food, or a gym expert's protein shake, but I'm going to feel great buying Soylent, because I fit into the marketing.
My point is that none of the existing products on the market market all these points: * An equal replacement for food, instead of a worse substitute on one axis or another (at least nutritionally); * An all the time replacement, not just for a specific purpose; * Market direct to the consumer (this seems to be the issue with some of the replacements used in hospitals).
Now, whether Soylent actually meets these claims, or whether the stereotypes are actually relevant to the contents of the products themselves, is largely irrelevant at this point. This is marketing, and HN users are gullible to it like everyone else. (Personally, I'm rooting for Soylent)
Re the name, which a bunch of people who seriously fail to see why that name: because it is rebellious in exactly the way average HN users are suckers for.
> This is marketing, and HN users are gullible to it like everyone else.
Exactly, and here's another example: What's the difference between Diet Coke and Coke Zero?
Answer: Diet Coke is popular with women, so some men won't drink it. Hence, introduce the more masculine Coke Zero, but basically the same thing. But make some tiny little tweaks to caffeine content and sweetness to create plausible deniability about it being identical.
Reference: http://foodwatch.com.au/mailbag/item/q-what-s-the-difference...
Exactly, and here's another example: What's the difference between Diet Coke and Coke Zero?
Answer: Diet Coke is popular with women, so some men won't drink it. Hence, introduce the more masculine Coke Zero, but basically the same thing. But make some tiny little tweaks to caffeine content and sweetness to create plausible deniability about it being identical.
Reference: http://foodwatch.com.au/mailbag/item/q-what-s-the-difference...
The main difference is that most of those meal replacements lack many nutrients, that makes them useful as a replacement for a meal or two every now and then. Soylent is attempting to provide every single nutrient required by our bodies, thus making it a permanent replacement for food.
No you are wrong. MRP companies are just more careful regarding marketing. Taking a "failing is ok, we'll fix it later" approach to your own health is a terribly retarded approach. Especially because long term effects can take months and years to manifest (lack of nutrients).
Why does the whole "but this product already exists" argument suddenly hold water when it comes to Soylent but not the myriad other tech startups?
For whatever reason, Soylent seems to trigger a visceral reaction in a lot of people.
Arguments like "but this product already exists" probably reflect more on the arguer than the product.
That said, I found the arguments urging caution around significant/unproven diet changes to be quite compelling. I'm intrigued by the idea and very interested in following the product, but I don't intend to be an early tester myself.
Arguments like "but this product already exists" probably reflect more on the arguer than the product.
That said, I found the arguments urging caution around significant/unproven diet changes to be quite compelling. I'm intrigued by the idea and very interested in following the product, but I don't intend to be an early tester myself.
I literally cannot fathom how this is 1. interesting to people 2. new and novel and 3. always trending on HN.
People can and have lived on liquid food for quite a long time. This isn't new, this isn't particularly interesting or groundbreaking in anyway.
Why the fascination on HN? Can someone explain it to me?
People can and have lived on liquid food for quite a long time. This isn't new, this isn't particularly interesting or groundbreaking in anyway.
Why the fascination on HN? Can someone explain it to me?
Why the fascination on HN?
Isn't this a YC-invested company? Other than that, I agree with you. I'm not interested in Soylent the product, nor am I interested in Soylent the company. I tell my friends to be wary of using the product.
Isn't this a YC-invested company? Other than that, I agree with you. I'm not interested in Soylent the product, nor am I interested in Soylent the company. I tell my friends to be wary of using the product.
I'm starting to think this has to be a viral marketing campaign / social experiment.
It's an interesting premise that people would entrust their long term health to unqualified individuals, who lack the resources to employ qualified individuals, simply for an extra hour everyday.
It's an interesting premise that people would entrust their long term health to unqualified individuals, who lack the resources to employ qualified individuals, simply for an extra hour everyday.
> It's an interesting premise that people would entrust their long term health to unqualified individuals
I trust my diet to an unqualified individual (me), as do most people.
> simply for an extra hour everyday
An hour a day is 6% of your waking life.
I trust my diet to an unqualified individual (me), as do most people.
> simply for an extra hour everyday
An hour a day is 6% of your waking life.
One of the most surprising things about the commentary on Soylent, is the level of vitriol and anger that they are pushing out a meal replacement product without an exceptionally high level of testing and scientific design; and that the entire _concept_ of trying to create a meal replacement product is morally wrong, or totally and completely impossible.
(For examples, just read the comments on this article, or any of the Soylent-related articles).
It seems to be based on a presumption that we all have amazing, carefully designed and scientifically tested diets as is, and Soylent is going to make our diets demonstrably worse, or (apparently) make us really sick, or (even) kill us.
Given that 69.2% of the adult US population is overweight, it would seem that our current amazing diets are perhaps not working.
Of course, the vast majority of us make it up as we go along, influenced by food manufacturers and marketing, and the people around us, as well as our parents.
Sure, food manufacturers have more scrutiny than you or I, but no one is making sure that any particular combination of food in the supermarket is going to lead to a healthy diet - nothing stops me from choosing and carrying out a bad diet - and many many people 'choose' and carry out bad diets as is.
Do you seriously think that, when the supermarket put in an entire aisle of confectionery, that they were doing it as some attempt to give us a good diet?
Or that coke is attempting to help us lose weight when the dump all that sugar - or HFCS - in?
If you think the person buying Taco Bell for breakfast, McDonalds for lunch, and KFC for dinner is following a carefully designed, healthy diet, you are deluded. If you think these people don't exist - you're deluded there too.
To be not evil, Soylent only has to be _not worse_ than the average existing diet.
Now, I agree that a complete meal replacement product should get more scrutiny than the average person's diet - and Soylent is! I certainly haven't had my diet designed by a group of food scientists or dieticians.
(For examples, just read the comments on this article, or any of the Soylent-related articles).
It seems to be based on a presumption that we all have amazing, carefully designed and scientifically tested diets as is, and Soylent is going to make our diets demonstrably worse, or (apparently) make us really sick, or (even) kill us.
Given that 69.2% of the adult US population is overweight, it would seem that our current amazing diets are perhaps not working.
Of course, the vast majority of us make it up as we go along, influenced by food manufacturers and marketing, and the people around us, as well as our parents.
Sure, food manufacturers have more scrutiny than you or I, but no one is making sure that any particular combination of food in the supermarket is going to lead to a healthy diet - nothing stops me from choosing and carrying out a bad diet - and many many people 'choose' and carry out bad diets as is.
Do you seriously think that, when the supermarket put in an entire aisle of confectionery, that they were doing it as some attempt to give us a good diet?
Or that coke is attempting to help us lose weight when the dump all that sugar - or HFCS - in?
If you think the person buying Taco Bell for breakfast, McDonalds for lunch, and KFC for dinner is following a carefully designed, healthy diet, you are deluded. If you think these people don't exist - you're deluded there too.
To be not evil, Soylent only has to be _not worse_ than the average existing diet.
Now, I agree that a complete meal replacement product should get more scrutiny than the average person's diet - and Soylent is! I certainly haven't had my diet designed by a group of food scientists or dieticians.
> the level of vitriol and anger [...] that the entire _concept_ of trying to create a meal replacement product is morally wrong
You're right there. Some people really do have a strong emotional response against the idea, which makes them put forward nitpicking arguments against it.
Will the initial implementations of Soylent be perfect? Probably not. But there is no reason why it's impossible to make an all-in-one food that is tasty, nutritious, convenient and cheap, so I'm sure that if enough effort is put into doing so, eventually it will happen.
When it happens, it's unlikely that I will solely eat Soylent; I like cooking and I like varienty. But I wouldn't be surprised if I come to use it for 30% of my calorific intake.
You're right there. Some people really do have a strong emotional response against the idea, which makes them put forward nitpicking arguments against it.
Will the initial implementations of Soylent be perfect? Probably not. But there is no reason why it's impossible to make an all-in-one food that is tasty, nutritious, convenient and cheap, so I'm sure that if enough effort is put into doing so, eventually it will happen.
When it happens, it's unlikely that I will solely eat Soylent; I like cooking and I like varienty. But I wouldn't be surprised if I come to use it for 30% of my calorific intake.
> I trust my diet to an unqualified individual (me), as do most people.
If you live in a country which adheres to standards of food safety and has regulatory bodies to protect and promote public health then I disagree. You entrust those bodies and the qualified individuals within them because they ensure what you purchase is what it says it is. Soylent has not reached this level of evaluation.
> An hour a day is 6% of your waking life.
If Soylent works completely as advertised yes you gain time. Should it lead to any kind of health problems it's more than likely you lose time.
If you live in a country which adheres to standards of food safety and has regulatory bodies to protect and promote public health then I disagree. You entrust those bodies and the qualified individuals within them because they ensure what you purchase is what it says it is. Soylent has not reached this level of evaluation.
> An hour a day is 6% of your waking life.
If Soylent works completely as advertised yes you gain time. Should it lead to any kind of health problems it's more than likely you lose time.
> Soylent has not reached this level of evaluation.
Do you actually know that? Presumably if there is US regulation/law around selling and marketing food products, then Soylent will have to be compliant just like everything else?
Though, given I live in Australia, a country which
> adheres to standards of food safety and has regulatory bodies to protect and promote public health
and I can still buy all the Quarter Pounders and chocolate I want, it seems these bodies are more about food safety, than choosing my diet for me.
Do you actually know that? Presumably if there is US regulation/law around selling and marketing food products, then Soylent will have to be compliant just like everything else?
Though, given I live in Australia, a country which
> adheres to standards of food safety and has regulatory bodies to protect and promote public health
and I can still buy all the Quarter Pounders and chocolate I want, it seems these bodies are more about food safety, than choosing my diet for me.
>If you live in a country which adheres to standards of food safety and has regulatory bodies to protect and promote public health then I disagree
Soylent has to adhere to all those same standards.
Soylent has to adhere to all those same standards.
No it won't, in the US at least. It will likely not need FDA approval just like most sports supplement don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_food_and_dietary_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_food_and_dietary_...
Did you even read that? It says you are wrong.
>The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 mandated that the FDA regulate dietary supplements as foods
Soylent has to adhere to the exact same standards as all the other food you buy right now.
>The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 mandated that the FDA regulate dietary supplements as foods
Soylent has to adhere to the exact same standards as all the other food you buy right now.
You either needed to read more or more closely. According to wikipedia linked:
"Like other food substances, dietary supplements are not subject to the safety and efficacy testing requirements imposed on drugs, and unlike drugs they do not require prior approval by the FDA; however, they are subject to the FDA regulations regarding adulteration and misbranding. The FDA can take action against dietary supplements only after they are proven to be unsafe. "
"Like other food substances, dietary supplements are not subject to the safety and efficacy testing requirements imposed on drugs, and unlike drugs they do not require prior approval by the FDA; however, they are subject to the FDA regulations regarding adulteration and misbranding. The FDA can take action against dietary supplements only after they are proven to be unsafe. "
No, you need to read more closely. It says exactly what I said. Soylent is covered under the exact same requirements as all other foods. This is very simple to understand, and I honestly can't imagine how you can possibly be having difficulty with this.
>>I trust my diet to an unqualified individual (me), as do most people.
Sorry, but this is straight out wrong. You will lose nothing and it will cause no harm in anyway, and I mean it literally if you experiment with natural foods. Go eat bananas, or apples, or mixture of those. Or say mixture of 20 fruits. It will never cause you any harm. Eat rice, wheat, meat, ragi, vegetables you name it. It will cause you absolutely no harm if you eat what is supposed to be eaten by a normal adult.
This is true, even if you occasionally eat junk food.
But if you go and pull only the essential 'ingredients' of these foods separately, mix them up in water and drink them. You are likely to cause a good enough amount of damage.
There is a very big reason, why our tongues have taste buds,why our stomachs have hydrochloric acid in them,why the stomach has a mucus lining, why we secrete digestive juices/enzymes, why we secrete bile. You see the whole functioning of the body is not designed to receive dosage of macro nutrients back to back in hourly dosage.
On a macro level if you look close, the food chain and the digestive system is perfectly optimized to survive and even thrive in the hands of unqualified individuals like us. If our body needed back to back dosage of macro nutrients in precise quantities to survive, our species would be extinct by now.
So the definition of efficiency when it comes to human digestive system is not, time saved in cooking food, or ability to receive and absorb exact chemical nutrients in precise quantities.
Also note the aim of the human digestive system and the way it measures efficiency is very different than our way.
>>An hour a day is 6% of your waking life.
You could say this about playing a game in the Google doodle, or say reading the news paper.
Its not like your receive 6% of your life in one shot. You receive it an hour at a time. For the kind of job we do an hour is not sufficient to even get started.
Sorry, but this is straight out wrong. You will lose nothing and it will cause no harm in anyway, and I mean it literally if you experiment with natural foods. Go eat bananas, or apples, or mixture of those. Or say mixture of 20 fruits. It will never cause you any harm. Eat rice, wheat, meat, ragi, vegetables you name it. It will cause you absolutely no harm if you eat what is supposed to be eaten by a normal adult.
This is true, even if you occasionally eat junk food.
But if you go and pull only the essential 'ingredients' of these foods separately, mix them up in water and drink them. You are likely to cause a good enough amount of damage.
There is a very big reason, why our tongues have taste buds,why our stomachs have hydrochloric acid in them,why the stomach has a mucus lining, why we secrete digestive juices/enzymes, why we secrete bile. You see the whole functioning of the body is not designed to receive dosage of macro nutrients back to back in hourly dosage.
On a macro level if you look close, the food chain and the digestive system is perfectly optimized to survive and even thrive in the hands of unqualified individuals like us. If our body needed back to back dosage of macro nutrients in precise quantities to survive, our species would be extinct by now.
So the definition of efficiency when it comes to human digestive system is not, time saved in cooking food, or ability to receive and absorb exact chemical nutrients in precise quantities.
Also note the aim of the human digestive system and the way it measures efficiency is very different than our way.
>>An hour a day is 6% of your waking life.
You could say this about playing a game in the Google doodle, or say reading the news paper.
Its not like your receive 6% of your life in one shot. You receive it an hour at a time. For the kind of job we do an hour is not sufficient to even get started.
The stuff that goes in Soylent and their quantities come from FDA recommendations.
Older products like Ensure weren't good enough to go "all in" on liquid food because they don't have 100% of everything we know we need.
I've heard that claim repeatedly, but Abbott disagrees with you and everyone else who says it. Look at Ensure Complete: http://ensure.com/products/ensure-complete-shakes
"Ensure Complete, one simple choice for 4-in-1 nutrition. Each delicious shake provides balanced nutrition and targeted muscle, heart, immune, and bone health benefits. It’s a simple choice to get the right nutrients in the right amounts to help you stay strong. Take charge of your health and your nutrition with Ensure Complete!"
From their FAQ: http://ensure.ca/en/faq/
"For how long can I use Ensure? Ensure products deliver complete and balanced nutrition that is always beneficial. There is no time limit to using Ensure products. In fact, long-term use is encouraged if you’re at a nutritional risk (for example, if you’re an older adult)."
"Can Ensure replace a meal? Yes. Ensure products are complete and balanced, when used in appropriate amounts they can be used to replace meals."
"Ensure Complete, one simple choice for 4-in-1 nutrition. Each delicious shake provides balanced nutrition and targeted muscle, heart, immune, and bone health benefits. It’s a simple choice to get the right nutrients in the right amounts to help you stay strong. Take charge of your health and your nutrition with Ensure Complete!"
From their FAQ: http://ensure.ca/en/faq/
"For how long can I use Ensure? Ensure products deliver complete and balanced nutrition that is always beneficial. There is no time limit to using Ensure products. In fact, long-term use is encouraged if you’re at a nutritional risk (for example, if you’re an older adult)."
"Can Ensure replace a meal? Yes. Ensure products are complete and balanced, when used in appropriate amounts they can be used to replace meals."
Didn't know about Ensure Complete and it seems that you are right, it looks pretty complete. The problem though is the variance in the DV% of different nutrients. For instance, if I wanted to get 100% of sodium from Ensure then I would have to intake 3500 calories and 260% protein, and I haven't heard too many great things about having too much protein. The DV% of most micros is not listed so there may be a lot of problems like this.
Where does one get the DV% that one needs? And are those % about surviving or thriving? There is literally no definitive place to get such information that is actually backed by science and data.
For instance, that 260% protein you cited is about half the protein I take in a day.
Also, FYI, the danger in taking in too much protein is very much overblown. I doubt you could actually consume enough protein to make it a problem unless you had a medical problem with your kidneys already.
For instance, that 260% protein you cited is about half the protein I take in a day.
Also, FYI, the danger in taking in too much protein is very much overblown. I doubt you could actually consume enough protein to make it a problem unless you had a medical problem with your kidneys already.
Do you know how Abbott (or others) deal with nutrients that block each other's absorption? e.g. Iron and some vitamins, copper and zinc?
I tried using a week's worth of Ensure Complete as a meal replacement. It didn't provide satiation.
No, they don't disagree at all. They say you can replace A MEAL with ensure. Not all of your food consumption period. There is a big difference. They only ever talk about using ensure as a supplement to your diet, not a replacement for it. If you want to live on ensure you need to drink 5 ensure completes per day, plus consume some extra calories, possibly some extra protein, some salt and a few vitamins. But they explicitly recommend that you do not exceed four servings per day: http://ensure.com/nutrition-faq
They say not to have more than 4 servings of _Ensure High Protein_ because of the protein content. I am not talking about that product.
In the FAQ I pointed to they say that Ensure is safe for long term use, is complete, and they answer a question about how many servings a day are necessary for meet your needs.
In the FAQ I pointed to they say that Ensure is safe for long term use, is complete, and they answer a question about how many servings a day are necessary for meet your needs.
Soylent only probably has 100% of what it's testers know they need and who knows how much of what they don't know they need. Ensure is good enough that people live on it, they don't loudly trumpet it as a complete replacement because 1) the market for that is small and it makes you look like a quack 2) people have a variety of nutritional needs based on life style, genetics. Hell ALTITUDE will change your nutritional needs.
The looks like a quack part is strong with soylent, imo. I'm getting a very big snake oil salesman vibe from this whole thing.
Why are people so hypocritical that they claim soylent is not nutritionally complete but ensure is, despite the obvious fact that nutritional labelling laws allow us to see that soylent contains everything ensure does and more?
Here in we see why marketing matters. A product marketed as a supplement to help round out a diet that's affected by age, jaw-being-wired-shut, chrons..., that the company is willing to cop to[1] as "yes it's designed to fully replace food" on their website's faq is positioned very differently than a product marketed as "100% food replacement, oh and maybe we'll save Africa" with heavy notes of fuck-the-establishment and some questionable understandings of how people eat[2].
[1]actually abbot and the like will advertise as being a full meal replacement... for situations where people have medical need and are being monitored by a medical staff, which is to say, in situations where problems might be caught and addressed.
[2]Don't want to eat three multi dish meals a day at 8,12,7? Human bodies have plenty of reserves to deal with out getting 100% of their RDI every single day, just so long as it averages out over a week or two.
But you still want something to keep the stomach from rumbling? Great, the supermarket is chock-a-block full of foods that need no preperation and supply a wide variety of nutrients, either in the form of specialized products (Ensure, Clif bars, various other supplements/diet products) or just no-prep food: pouch of tuna, quart of milk, yogurt, that thing of trail mix that's clearly just muesli with extra peanuts, sack of pre hard-boiled eggs. Whatever.
[1]actually abbot and the like will advertise as being a full meal replacement... for situations where people have medical need and are being monitored by a medical staff, which is to say, in situations where problems might be caught and addressed.
[2]Don't want to eat three multi dish meals a day at 8,12,7? Human bodies have plenty of reserves to deal with out getting 100% of their RDI every single day, just so long as it averages out over a week or two.
But you still want something to keep the stomach from rumbling? Great, the supermarket is chock-a-block full of foods that need no preperation and supply a wide variety of nutrients, either in the form of specialized products (Ensure, Clif bars, various other supplements/diet products) or just no-prep food: pouch of tuna, quart of milk, yogurt, that thing of trail mix that's clearly just muesli with extra peanuts, sack of pre hard-boiled eggs. Whatever.
You didn't address anything I said at all. So, why is your post a reply to me?
I could not agree with you more.
Perhaps simply watching it all unfold as opposed to just going and buying something.
Personally I am curious as to how it works out; I've never been one to buy gels or sports drinks, preferring to make my own because I know what goes in them and can tweak it for me. I get this vibe from the Soylent project.
Personally I am curious as to how it works out; I've never been one to buy gels or sports drinks, preferring to make my own because I know what goes in them and can tweak it for me. I get this vibe from the Soylent project.
Exactly. If you want to live on liquids alone you could just stick to milk. I know a cheap person that lived on nothing but oats and milk for quite a while to save money. Nothing I'd do for a new laptop or other equipment.
I think I've heard of past attempts, but they didn't seem to catch on? This Soylent stuff seems to be "proving" itself; or at least not debunked enough to drop it just yet. If it truly does work, I think a lot of 3rd world countries would benefit from it. So at least for me, I'm interested in the developments of Soylent. In general, I'm interested in any tech that TRULY is world-changing even if it's not in the form of a computer. Now do I think it belongs on HN? That's a bit debatable, but if people are upvoting it(and not gaming the system) then it has the right to be here just like anything else. Maybe HN is slowy changing to be more than strictly 0s & 1s news?
But this is what I don't get. We literally already have this. Some cancer patients live on a liquid diet for YEARS already. We have complete liquid nutrition. It's a solved problem.
Now, the application can be debated, but soylent doesn't seem to bring anything new to the table.
It feels like this is just old solution with new marketing.
Now, the application can be debated, but soylent doesn't seem to bring anything new to the table.
It feels like this is just old solution with new marketing.
I'm curious -- are these formulae available for purchase by anyone? I do think that Soylent's research is somewhat redundant (although more research is never a bad thing especially with tricky business like nutrition), but is there another product that's come out of this cancer patient diet that I could buy?
> I'm curious -- are these formulae available for purchase by anyone?
I have this for breakfast every morning. It's designed to be nutritious, convenient and filling to aid weight loss:
http://www.idealshape.com/meal-replacement-shakes/
I have a personal size (two-cup?) blender - I mix one scoop powder, one cup milk, several ice cubes, blend for 30 seconds for a morning milkshake.
Other companies sell formulas designed for weight gain for bodybuilders - you can find those at the local health food/supplements store.
I have this for breakfast every morning. It's designed to be nutritious, convenient and filling to aid weight loss:
http://www.idealshape.com/meal-replacement-shakes/
I have a personal size (two-cup?) blender - I mix one scoop powder, one cup milk, several ice cubes, blend for 30 seconds for a morning milkshake.
Other companies sell formulas designed for weight gain for bodybuilders - you can find those at the local health food/supplements store.
Well, I dunno. I cannot say you're wrong. I'm just interested in stuff like this as long as their are large groups of starving people in the world. Maybe my interests are misdirected and I should be wondering why current solutions aren't being applied.
> I'm just interested in stuff like this as long as their are large groups of starving people in the world.
Why? Soylent has no rational relationship to any solution to any of the problems that cause people to be starving.
Why? Soylent has no rational relationship to any solution to any of the problems that cause people to be starving.
On a global scale, Soylent is very very expensive. Their current pricing is $65/week. Many nonprofits feed someone for $50-100/year in the third world. The price would have to come down to 2% of the current value to be considered. That's unlikely with such a heavily industrialized product.
Maybe we'll decide to mass-produce and/or subsidize? I don't know, I just think it's cool thing he's doing and want to see the conclusion of it. Maybe it's all a big waste of time, who knows. I just want to be kept informed of the progress.
Well, it's surely not a waste of time for the soylent folk. I'm sure they'll make a bunch of money from suckers buying into it.
How on Earth is ten days enough to test anything in regards to diet? Pretty sure humans don't notice much change in that time, let alone enough to measure? Day to day numbers fluctuate by a lot, so wouldn't it have to be tested over a longer period for it to be valid?
I was also alarmed by that paragraph.
Even if you had a large beta program and ran each revisions for 100 days, the feedback would be garbage unless you had proper controls and measurements in place.
> Various doctors, dietitians, and food scientists
> have been reviewing our formula and providing
> suggestions as they see fit. We have been listening
> to them and testing these changes in our beta
> program. Each modification requires making a new
> batch of Soylent by hand, shipping them to our
> beta testers, and gathering their feedback, a
> process that takes at least 10 days per revision.
Even if you had a large beta program and ran each revisions for 100 days, the feedback would be garbage unless you had proper controls and measurements in place.
>The idea that the dietary advice of a doctor could meaningfully be tested in a few weeks by a beta program of laypeople with no scientific controls is utterly ridiculous.
But you are assuming the purpose of the test is to test the merit of the dietary motivator for the change, the testing described here might just be user acceptance tasting. That is, does this this change make it taste bad? Give you gas? etc
But you are assuming the purpose of the test is to test the merit of the dietary motivator for the change, the testing described here might just be user acceptance tasting. That is, does this this change make it taste bad? Give you gas? etc
They are probably treating it like more of a smoke test. In 10 days you can certainly get a good idea about changes in flavor, texture, preparation, etc. You also ought to get some feedback on whether a formula change resulted in any immediate health concerns.
They aren't getting any feedback on immediate health concerns in just 10 days unless they decide to add peanuts or arsenic to the mix.
Keep in mind that this may be the only form of nutrition the 'beta testers' are getting, and possibly have been getting, for a significant amount of time.
If you're eating normal food then some deficiency in one component of one meal may be masked by a surplus in another, and in particular if you eat a varied diet then that deficiency could start and stop within one meal. If instead your sole source of nutrition is suddenly deficient, it's not a stretch to think that you could notice a difference within 10 days.
I'm not trying to defend the product, I just don't think it's inconceivable that 10 days is long enough to notice a big problem with a formulation change.
If you're eating normal food then some deficiency in one component of one meal may be masked by a surplus in another, and in particular if you eat a varied diet then that deficiency could start and stop within one meal. If instead your sole source of nutrition is suddenly deficient, it's not a stretch to think that you could notice a difference within 10 days.
I'm not trying to defend the product, I just don't think it's inconceivable that 10 days is long enough to notice a big problem with a formulation change.
Even the (not very scientific) test from the EU Food-Safety-Agency make 90-days trials on animals (and that does not tell a lot imho).
If you want to know, if you are allergic, a short test should be sufficient. If you wanna know, if allergies might be initiated from the food, 10 days don't do much good. If you want to know, if some known things (nutrition, et al) are missing from the "food" 10 days won't do you much good and might only be detected in really rigorous blood-tests.
If you want to check for problems with unknown unknowns (and there are a lot of things we yet do not know, regarding food and our bodies) 10 days are nothing more then a nice joke. (Sorry, but living with a biologist make me quite cynical, when it comes to things, that might just endanger us.)
A really scientific method is something else. They might stumble upon some things, but I'd like to know, if every beta-tester gets his blood-work done before and after every test. How does the testing process in the first place look like (blood tests as said? just taste? subjective feeling after n-days of new soylent version? and so on).
> so everyone will get their complete amino acid profile
No everyone will get a one size fits all amino acid profile. And then comes the problem, that humans aren't "one size fits all". They will probably get a solution, that fits one, two or probably max. three sigma of the targeted population.
To be fair, I love food, so soylent would not be for me. I really think, that a cheap food-replacement that does give most people mostly everything they need in terms of nutrition, might really do a lot of good, if distributed in times of disaster or in regions with problematic food distribution (third world). But that is not the targeted audience as I see it.
It seems to be people who do not value food, but have enough money on their hand, to replace it with this product.
If you want to know, if you are allergic, a short test should be sufficient. If you wanna know, if allergies might be initiated from the food, 10 days don't do much good. If you want to know, if some known things (nutrition, et al) are missing from the "food" 10 days won't do you much good and might only be detected in really rigorous blood-tests.
If you want to check for problems with unknown unknowns (and there are a lot of things we yet do not know, regarding food and our bodies) 10 days are nothing more then a nice joke. (Sorry, but living with a biologist make me quite cynical, when it comes to things, that might just endanger us.)
A really scientific method is something else. They might stumble upon some things, but I'd like to know, if every beta-tester gets his blood-work done before and after every test. How does the testing process in the first place look like (blood tests as said? just taste? subjective feeling after n-days of new soylent version? and so on).
> so everyone will get their complete amino acid profile
No everyone will get a one size fits all amino acid profile. And then comes the problem, that humans aren't "one size fits all". They will probably get a solution, that fits one, two or probably max. three sigma of the targeted population.
To be fair, I love food, so soylent would not be for me. I really think, that a cheap food-replacement that does give most people mostly everything they need in terms of nutrition, might really do a lot of good, if distributed in times of disaster or in regions with problematic food distribution (third world). But that is not the targeted audience as I see it.
It seems to be people who do not value food, but have enough money on their hand, to replace it with this product.
(This is completely off-topic, but you only needed about 1/3 of the commas you used. For instance, "if you wanna know, ..." does not need a comma. Your final sentence does not need any commas. Etc.)
In general they don't seem so bothered about the scientific method.
Here's a classic deficiency case:
"The onset of symptoms of scurvy depends on how long it takes for the person to use up their limited stores of vitamin C. For example, if the diet includes no vitamin C at all, the average onset of symptoms is about four weeks"
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pag...
"The onset of symptoms of scurvy depends on how long it takes for the person to use up their limited stores of vitamin C. For example, if the diet includes no vitamin C at all, the average onset of symptoms is about four weeks"
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pag...
I would assume they mean testing it for factors like taste, etc. which would be immediate rather than doing it for nutritional testing.
Why would you ask doctors or dietitians for advice about the taste of the preparation?
I assume he meant that the input from doctors etc is for nutritional reasons but when they ship out to testers they are taking the nutrition changes at face value and are only concerned about feedback from testers on whether it affected the taste/consistency/gives them gas etc.
[deleted]
They're at the point of making changes to "taste, texture, and smell" - the dietary side of the formula is nailed down already, and I am willing to believe was tested more rigorously.
Here's an interesting analysis of Soylent:
http://www.priceplow.com/blog/soylent-subterfuge
I would think twice before committing to a soylent-only diet.
I would think twice before committing to a soylent-only diet.
My uncle was born with a digestive tract defect that was not detected until he was of middle age. (The only sign that he had any health problem at all was that he was of only average height, in a family in which all his five brothers were tall.) He was on total parenteral nutrition
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a601166.htm...
for something like twenty years before dying last week at the age of ninety-one. It's basic medical background knowledge that keeps me from being impressed by the Soylent shot in the dark, and it is reflecting that human nutrition is both
a) mostly a hard problem, and
b) mostly a SOLVED problem
that keeps me from making gee-whiz comments about the Soylent project here on HN. The great thing about a free-enterprise economy with minimal regulation is that if you like this kind of thing, you can spend your hard-earned money to buy Soylent. If your eating behavior includes experiential or social outcomes better met by eating a variety of foods you cook and chew, you can join me in eating a little of this and a little of that over the course of a year. The Soylent company is YC-invested, as I recall, so press releases from the company will continue to be posted here, but meanwhile I will pursue a variety of micronutrients and a variety of pleasant experiences by eating a varied diet with my family and friends.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a601166.htm...
for something like twenty years before dying last week at the age of ninety-one. It's basic medical background knowledge that keeps me from being impressed by the Soylent shot in the dark, and it is reflecting that human nutrition is both
a) mostly a hard problem, and
b) mostly a SOLVED problem
that keeps me from making gee-whiz comments about the Soylent project here on HN. The great thing about a free-enterprise economy with minimal regulation is that if you like this kind of thing, you can spend your hard-earned money to buy Soylent. If your eating behavior includes experiential or social outcomes better met by eating a variety of foods you cook and chew, you can join me in eating a little of this and a little of that over the course of a year. The Soylent company is YC-invested, as I recall, so press releases from the company will continue to be posted here, but meanwhile I will pursue a variety of micronutrients and a variety of pleasant experiences by eating a varied diet with my family and friends.
I don't know how many different formulas they'll make in the future, but I'd love one with some sort of crushed up powdered oats mix instead of maltodextrin or other not-so-great carb sources. There are very few meal replacements in the supplement market that aren't filled with maltodextrin or sugar alcohols. I'd love something that's the equivalent of a meal I could put in a blender (e.g. banana, natural peanut butter, oats, and maybe some protein powder) without all the added chemicals.
My DIY blend uses oat flour. There are a lot of soylent recipes out there - the hacker school soylent recipe [1] is a nice oat-flour based one with a decent default nutritional profile.
1: http://www.cookingfor20.com/2013/06/18/hacker-school-soylent...
edit: also note, the only synthesised 'chemicals' most recipes include are potassium gluconate and calcium citrate. Everything else is a food or food extract.
1: http://www.cookingfor20.com/2013/06/18/hacker-school-soylent...
edit: also note, the only synthesised 'chemicals' most recipes include are potassium gluconate and calcium citrate. Everything else is a food or food extract.
Thanks! I'll check it out. And when I was referring to chemicals I was talking about the broader meal replacement supplement market, not Soylent.
Does anyone remember the early post from this guy where he said that he just wanted to stop spending so much of his time and energy on food? Now it's all he does. He "wakes up every day thinking about it."
Now that's ironic.
Now that's ironic.
Has anyone published a post about their experience with Soylent where they didn't use it to replace all their meals, but just maybe one or two of them a day? That's the use case I'm interested in.
I agree completely, I would think that's the exact use case most of us are interested in. It sounds like the perfect breakfast drink or quick on the go lunch.
Soylent is probably overkill for this use case. As long as you eat a reasonable healthy real-food meal every day, all you really need from a meal replacement are some macronutrients and maybe electrolytes. I mean, you could drink yoghurt for breakfast every day and be fine.
Soylent is designed to completely replace food which is a much harder & much more expensive proposition than simply giving you some energy until dinnertime.
Soylent is designed to completely replace food which is a much harder & much more expensive proposition than simply giving you some energy until dinnertime.
I find this project interesting, especially since it seems to be able to lower my cost of living (currently I buy for around 300 EUR a month of food, using Soylent should be able to lower this to ~220 EUR from what I understand). Yet, at the same time I worry how healthy it would be on the long term. For example, research has shown that vitamin pills are often detrimental to ones health and could even increase the chance of getting cancer. I wonder if Soylent uses much the same ingredients of vitamin pills.
Can we get a Keto version of this?
Bonus points for a Paleo friendly version.
As it is now, I would never get close to that carbohydrate-based drink.
Bonus points for a Paleo friendly version.
As it is now, I would never get close to that carbohydrate-based drink.
Even though it isn't for me (I actually like food, finding it one of the greatest pleasures in life), the Soylent story still presents an interesting storyline to me. But I've always wondered: Why the name Soylent? Aren't there some negative connotations to that? Is it...made of people?
An aspect of Soylent that I don't get is the assumption that it gets you out of the drudgery of eating, for those people for whom it is such a chore: the idea of chugging multiple cups of gray, sludgy drink daily sounds like an enormous burden that would grow tiring really quickly. It sounds like something that would make you dread the passing of the day, as another cup of slurry draws ever closer.
I speak at least a bit from experience, as one stage in my life had me working out daily, starting each with a big protein drink. Over time I realized that I was dreading, if not even skipping, the workout because of the protein drink that went with it.
An aspect of Soylent that I don't get is the assumption that it gets you out of the drudgery of eating, for those people for whom it is such a chore: the idea of chugging multiple cups of gray, sludgy drink daily sounds like an enormous burden that would grow tiring really quickly. It sounds like something that would make you dread the passing of the day, as another cup of slurry draws ever closer.
I speak at least a bit from experience, as one stage in my life had me working out daily, starting each with a big protein drink. Over time I realized that I was dreading, if not even skipping, the workout because of the protein drink that went with it.
There is a use case that you maybe didn't think of:
I love to eat. I love to eat too much. If I make two portions of a meal with the intention of eating the other one later, I'll often just eat both. Where food is concerned, I'm like a labrador dog; I have no willpower. Everyone I know in my family is like this.
I'm mildly overweight, but only just because I play sports, hike and go to the gym a lot. I'd love to have a way of eating ideal my calorific intake with no fuss or special eating time because it would make it much easier to avoid overeating - I could still eat proper food a couple of times a week for the sheer pleasure, but not every mealtime would become a hazardous temptation to eat way, way too much. Soylent looks like a possible way of achieving that.
I love to eat. I love to eat too much. If I make two portions of a meal with the intention of eating the other one later, I'll often just eat both. Where food is concerned, I'm like a labrador dog; I have no willpower. Everyone I know in my family is like this.
I'm mildly overweight, but only just because I play sports, hike and go to the gym a lot. I'd love to have a way of eating ideal my calorific intake with no fuss or special eating time because it would make it much easier to avoid overeating - I could still eat proper food a couple of times a week for the sheer pleasure, but not every mealtime would become a hazardous temptation to eat way, way too much. Soylent looks like a possible way of achieving that.
I love food too. If I weren't a programmer I would be a chef. But just like sex, I want to have it when I feel like it, not in a rigorous schedule determined by society.
In fact, not eating food as often makes you appreciate it more when you have it. Go three months without eating pizza and then have some, how did it taste? Now eat pizza every day for three months and then have some more, how did it taste?
I currently eat once a day and I would gladly replace some of my meals with this drink. That would allow me to eat, say three times a week, enjoying the food that I really crave. As a food lover, this is the perfect product for me.
In fact, not eating food as often makes you appreciate it more when you have it. Go three months without eating pizza and then have some, how did it taste? Now eat pizza every day for three months and then have some more, how did it taste?
I currently eat once a day and I would gladly replace some of my meals with this drink. That would allow me to eat, say three times a week, enjoying the food that I really crave. As a food lover, this is the perfect product for me.
not in a rigorous schedule determined by society
Why don't you just eat when you want to? As an adult you do what you feel like doing. This is neither here nor there in the discussion regarding Soylent.
In fact, not eating food as often makes you appreciate it more when you have it.
I fully understand and practice the idea of self-deprivation for heightened experiences (I've followed the consumption habits of Ramadan despite being an agnostic, for example). However this product doesn't deprive you of nutrition or liquids, obviously, and while it does deprive you of taste (or at least good taste), the benefit of real food is that the variety is enormous. You mention pizza, for instance, yet again it isn't the choice of pizza every day or Soylent and then the monthly pizza -- many people with good diets already have pizza so infrequently that it is an enormous treat. The same with a grilled burger. Or a steak. Or a lobster. Or a fresh fish. Or sushi. Or Chinese. Some butter chicken. A turkey sandwich on fresh Rye. Or even, dare I say it, the occasional Big Mac. It goes on forever and ever and ever, such that if I ever lose that delight with food, I'm doing something wrong.
Why don't you just eat when you want to? As an adult you do what you feel like doing. This is neither here nor there in the discussion regarding Soylent.
In fact, not eating food as often makes you appreciate it more when you have it.
I fully understand and practice the idea of self-deprivation for heightened experiences (I've followed the consumption habits of Ramadan despite being an agnostic, for example). However this product doesn't deprive you of nutrition or liquids, obviously, and while it does deprive you of taste (or at least good taste), the benefit of real food is that the variety is enormous. You mention pizza, for instance, yet again it isn't the choice of pizza every day or Soylent and then the monthly pizza -- many people with good diets already have pizza so infrequently that it is an enormous treat. The same with a grilled burger. Or a steak. Or a lobster. Or a fresh fish. Or sushi. Or Chinese. Some butter chicken. A turkey sandwich on fresh Rye. Or even, dare I say it, the occasional Big Mac. It goes on forever and ever and ever, such that if I ever lose that delight with food, I'm doing something wrong.
I've been doing DIY soylent for a few months now. I have to say it really does liberate much of the day, and it isn't at all a chore. It's easy to drink, I just sip it throughout the day. It has only a vague taste, and is a bit like drinking thick water. It might sound like it would be unpleasant or boring, but it isn't. I still have normal meals in the evening, but more and more I've come to feel like going all-soylent.
Can you post your recipe?
I suggest starting with the hacker school soylent recipe [1], but eliminate the flax seed in favour of using xanthan gum and inulin as fibre sources, and make sure you blend the lecithin granules into a fine powder before making up the mix. That gives a smooth, pleasant texture and makes it very easy to drink. I'll post the full recipe on http://www.makesoylent.com/ this evening.
1: http://www.cookingfor20.com/2013/06/18/hacker-school-soylent...
1: http://www.cookingfor20.com/2013/06/18/hacker-school-soylent...
Thanks! What's wrong with flax seed though? Don't you get a lot of omega 3's from that in addition to the fiber?
Yeah flax seed is a nice omega3 source as well as a fibre source. But it tastes disgustingly bitter, and even the mostly finely powdered forms are like sand in your mouth. So for textural and taste reasons, I switched to alternatives.
He posted it elsewhere in this thread[1]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6283159
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6283159
There are also Red and Yellow flavors of Soylent, from the movie. Green is the "new and improved" flavor. And though I haven't been able to source a direct reference, I think the connotation is only the new, Green flavor has the human secret sauce. Soylent is a total-food substitute for the apocalyptic / dystopian future.
It's still not a great name because it will always bring the negative connotation for those familiar with the movie. But I see where the inventor was going with it.
It's still not a great name because it will always bring the negative connotation for those familiar with the movie. But I see where the inventor was going with it.
Exactly, Soylent Red and Yellow are fine. Soylent is a portmanteau of "soybean" and "lentil", from the book that provides the story for the movie.
I've discovered that there are two types of people: Those who live to eat and those who eat to live. I am the former, and Soylent seems to target the latter. I am always looking forward to my next meal. I love to eat, and removing that would be removing a large part of what makes life fulfilling for me.
I think there is a third type in between your two types of people.
Maybe just a spectrum with opposite ends?
>> An aspect of Soylent that I don't get is the assumption that it gets you out of the drudgery of eating
Maybe not everybody is going to use it as a straight meal replacement. I for one like to think I would enjoy a glass for breakfast. Or maybe even for a quick working lunch, you know, on those days I'm too busy at work to stop and smell the roses and go out for an 1.5hr lunch break.... I've seen sooo many people get up in arms about completely replacing food. "ZOMG WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE LIKE FOOD" etc.. Really, I'm fascinated by the nutrition needs of the human body, and I think trying to cram everything into a drink is a curious concept. And yes, on those days I'm on the road, I think it would be better than stopping at say, Mcdonalds or Subway. Likely in both taste and health.
Also, Only Soylent green is people. All the other soylents (red? purple? I don't remember the colors..) were legit food I believe. I do enjoy the irony though...
Maybe not everybody is going to use it as a straight meal replacement. I for one like to think I would enjoy a glass for breakfast. Or maybe even for a quick working lunch, you know, on those days I'm too busy at work to stop and smell the roses and go out for an 1.5hr lunch break.... I've seen sooo many people get up in arms about completely replacing food. "ZOMG WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE LIKE FOOD" etc.. Really, I'm fascinated by the nutrition needs of the human body, and I think trying to cram everything into a drink is a curious concept. And yes, on those days I'm on the road, I think it would be better than stopping at say, Mcdonalds or Subway. Likely in both taste and health.
Also, Only Soylent green is people. All the other soylents (red? purple? I don't remember the colors..) were legit food I believe. I do enjoy the irony though...
I've seen sooo many people get up in arms about completely replacing food. "ZOMG WHY DON'T YOU PEOPLE LIKE FOOD" etc..
The whole point of Soylent is that it is a 100% food replacement. If people just want to skip meals...just skip them! Or have a glass of milk.
The human body does not operate on the edge of deprivation, and quite contrary you could go quite a long period of time eating just rice. This notion that every meal must provide a full-spectrum nutritionally complete intake is not nutritionally or practically valid.
on those days I'm too busy at work to stop and smell the roses and go out for an 1.5hr lunch break
It takes literally seconds to throw together a sandwich. Or to microwave some leftovers. Etc. Pitching Soylent compared to infomercial-style broken food habits (you muss! you fuss!) has always seemed very dishonest to me.
The whole point of Soylent is that it is a 100% food replacement. If people just want to skip meals...just skip them! Or have a glass of milk.
The human body does not operate on the edge of deprivation, and quite contrary you could go quite a long period of time eating just rice. This notion that every meal must provide a full-spectrum nutritionally complete intake is not nutritionally or practically valid.
on those days I'm too busy at work to stop and smell the roses and go out for an 1.5hr lunch break
It takes literally seconds to throw together a sandwich. Or to microwave some leftovers. Etc. Pitching Soylent compared to infomercial-style broken food habits (you muss! you fuss!) has always seemed very dishonest to me.
I think the name "Soylent" is brilliant. It's memorable precisely because of its association with Soylent Green. Nobody is actually going to make the naive mistake of believing it's made of people.
>>the idea of chugging multiple cups of gray, sludgy drink daily sounds like an enormous burden that would grow tiring really quickly. It sounds like something that would make you dread the passing of the day, as another cup of slurry draws ever closer.
I guess some people just don't care about taste as much as they care about superior nutrition that uses less resources to produce and transport, and less time to prepare, consume and clean up.
I guess some people just don't care about taste as much as they care about superior nutrition that uses less resources to produce and transport, and less time to prepare, consume and clean up.
uses less resources to produce
You've run the numbers on this?
You've run the numbers on this?
No, but it sounds logical to me that it would be a lot more efficient to get, say, X tons of calcium from calcium carbonate than from milk, or protein from a high yielding source instead of one that needs to be tasty.
> No, but it sounds logical to me that it would be a lot more efficient to get, say, X tons of calcium from calcium carbonate than from milk, or protein from a high yielding source instead of one that needs to be tasty.
It might be, if you were considering each individual micronutrient individually. The thing about real foods is that they tend to be sources of multiple micronutrients. You get more than calcium from milk.
It might be, if you were considering each individual micronutrient individually. The thing about real foods is that they tend to be sources of multiple micronutrients. You get more than calcium from milk.
In my country this is called a meal replacement. I live in the future..
One of the aisles is targeted at young people, with marketing themes around bodybuilding or triathlon training. The other aisle is targeted at senior citizens, with marketing themes around osteoporosis or longevity. There might be a third aisle, or a portion of one of the other two, targeting mostly women with themes of weight loss. However, it's pretty much the same stuff in the bottle on any aisle.
Soylent looks to be a online aisle, targeting the exact same stuff to tech-savvy hipsters, with themes of lifehacking and and classic sci-fi cinema.
I'm sure that your particular Brawndo is special because it has electrolytes, or whatever, but I don't understand why the underlying concept of a meal-replacement shake warrants so much coverage. This concept isn't the least bit novel.