It has been quite well researched and lots of people online live solely if not mostly (60-90% of all food intake) off of it.

Most people who do live off of it conclude by saying - it is definitely far better for me than my average normal diet before which just couldn't have been healthy (fast food, eating irregularly, overeating, snacking etc). So they don't really care if it isn't perfect because almost nobody has a perfect diet. This comes closer than most and has lots and lots of people attesting for it (including follow up blood tests).

Spent a long while researching and it definitely seems worth it - obviously I would still allow myself to eat solid food whenever I wanted but this should take off the pressure of *needing* to cook and eat healthily.

Exactly!  They guy who invented soylent has minimal knowledge of nutrition and did not do feeding trials before marketing this stuff either.   This guy is the same game who went on record stating that formula is better than breast milk, "As far as safety control and completeness are concerned, formula is actually better.  Nature isn't always best."  This goes contrary to almost every molecule of research regarding formula and breast milk and also contrary to much research that shows breast fed children to be healthier in both short and long term. 

He also states that "canned vegetables are better than fresh ones because fresh ones are decaying."  He completely neglects to mention that the high heat and pressure of canning kills a lot of vitamins, potential dangers of BPA and aluminum contamination, amount of chemicals added as preservatives, and the fact that canned foods are typically of the lowest possible quality, items that were not good enough to be sold fresh.  Source of quotes here: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/04/the-man-who-would-make-eating-obsolete/361058/ . 

Yes, you can live off of burgers and fries, you can live off of white rice and beans, you can live off of all kinds of things, that does not mean I plan to experiment with my body by eating known garbage food long term.  Although the name also makes me laugh, I would assume it is named Soylent due to the high content of heavily processed soy protein isolate in this stuff. 

Soy protein isolate is about the cheapest protein source around, it has low digestability compared to other foods, men might want to consider that it contains exogenous estrogens (it's those exogenous estrogens that accound for the cholesterol lowering effect but they also promote body fat accumulation and a more girly appearance), and is not a complete protein.  The algal oil is also a very cheap source of oil.  Plus they add a sugar source and a bunch of vitamins. 

If food science actually reliably knew everything about what humans needed to survive and how those things operated in the body, then it might be safer to trust such heavily processed chemical food sources, but we are far from understanding such things and heavily processed foods regularly come out on the losing side of the game when they are researched.  Plus the make of Soylent is signficantly out of touch with even current research. 

Personally, I would not risk my health eating this kind of cheap chemical food, although granted it may be no worse or may even be slightly better than the burgers and fries, cereal, potato chips, ice cream, sugary drinks, cookies and so called (erroneously so) 'health' bars I see some people mostly eating through the day.  If you are already eating total crap, then soylent might be better.   Otherwise, I would stay well away from it, very far away!  If you are pressed for time, you can always train yourself to eat fewer meals, that saves a lot of time.  I too like the idea of something both healthy and convenient, but right now the options are healthy OR convenient, in which case I will be siding with 'healthy.'  Yes eating real food is a bit of hassle, but it's way less hassle than getting sick or being tired all day. 
-Eva 

Not a joke @jojo but I too noticed that. The owner named I after the novel the film was based on. So it isn't made of people!

Thanks for taking the time to write that up!

Well that covers oil and carb requirements but you'll need some other vitamins and minerals plus a protein source for long term survival.  ;-PP  But yeah, $20.00 is steep for actually low income people.  The only real advantage i can see with Soylent is convenience, but there are lots of other meal replacement shakes, Ensure drinks, etc already out there as well that are quite similar in ingredients. 
-Eva

Soylent does not cost 20 dollars per day. It is 9 dollars per day. You can even make your own diy version using organic whole foods and get that down to about 5 or 6 dollars per day with better ingredients if you are scared about bioavailability.

Considering you still eat for fun a few times a week or more, your teeth ans jaw will not erode either.

Considering the whole soy and estrogen problem, that is also incorrect as soy protein isolate removes the harmful phytoestrogens (unsure if this is the correct name), that cause the testosterone issues in men.

As for bioavailability, it seems all the people who have lived off of this mostly (80-90%) have near perfect blood work without and lack of vitamins. I would provide sources however I'm sitting in line waiting for the Eurotunnel at the moment and I'm on my phone.

For more information on whether this is actually healthy please refer to "discourse soylent" and look through the forums.

I think a lot of your information Eva is unfair and not very jjustified (mine probably isn't either considering lack of sources, but I'll try and get those together when I have a computer!).

Also there are other companies which do it better than soylent currently does in Europe. One of which seems to be Mana and another Jakeshake.

The potential benefits oofswitching food sources to this for somebody who doesn't have much free time are huge.

Well, as long as we're all comparing our successes w/ weight loss (which is not much different that a "whose is bigger" contest), I'll go on record as having lost 100 pounds a couple of years ago using the Take Shape For life program. The key for me was that its safety and efficacy are proven in independent clinical trials. It's not hyped up bullshit. It just works. And it's easy & convenient (yes, I have more time for meditation now). Top that off with its major focus on long term health instead of just a diet mentality of getting to a certain weight and then quitting. I've gone from 280 to 180 and have kept that weight off for 2+ years. I learned new habits of health, which slowly have replaced my old habits of disease.

It cost me $12.00 a day, compared w/ Soylent's $20.00 a day (quoted from above). The meal replacements were tasty, I got to eat 6x a day and I wasn't hungry.

That said, if you're already at a healthy weight, I advocate a proper dietary regimen based on mostly whole, natural foods. I still eat the occasional meal replacement when I'm on the go but I mostly eat whole foods at this point, and focus on vegetables and fruits, high quality proteins and healthy fats.

I agree with Richard Zen that most people eat to satisfy cravings, deal with stress, or fill a perceived hole in their lives. That's a recipe for obesity.  Hmmm, craving - doesn't that sound familiar?? Almost like it's the cause of suffering or something.

What I meant by if it tastes good, spit it out is in reference to junk food, sweets and whatnot, not natural whole foods, and the like.  And, hey eat some sweets every once in a while, so what , right?  Nature's way of telling us it is good by taste does not work with human made stuff, life out of balance.

And, you are right, wheat is not necessarily bad for anyone, but it is if  person has celiac disease or gluten sensitivity.

And fruit is the ovaries of trees!!!  The horror of living.  Life feeds on Life.  For the carrots , it is the holocaust. 



Tool

"Disgustipated"

And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber. 
And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself. 
And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest. 
And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil. 
One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear. 
And terror possesed me then. 
And I begged, 
"Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?" 
And the angel said unto me, 
"These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots! 
You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust." 
And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared, 
"Hear me now, I have seen the light! 
They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! 
Damn you! 
Let the rabbits wear glasses! 
Save our brothers!" 
Can I get an amen? 
Can I get a hallelujah? 
Thank you Jesus. 
Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on........ 

This is necessary

I'm not sure if you were just pulling their legs or not, but any of the refined, hydrogenated vegetable oils are really bad for you. Pure, unsalted butter, ghee, cold-pressed oils & animal lard are the way to go!

Tim, if you have started the experiment, we would love to know how it's going so far.

Keep us updated.

Love & metta,
Yash

If you wish to make counter claims, at least include some research, science or something. 
I noticed later that they have different formulations, one for dry powder and one for the liquid.  Soy is very high in ingredient listing for one of them, I think it was the liquid, which probably explains why the website brags about soy so much.  Yeah I too was wondering where all the soy was at on that listing!  They do not give sources for some of the stuff though, modified starch and whatnot can come from a variety of sources. 
What is yoru source for this info?  Are you assumign because it is unsaturated?  Actually canola has come under increasing fire for its unhealthfulness, most of it is GMO, bred from poisonous rapeseeds and still contains some of the toxins, high heat in processing destabilizes unsaturated fates like rape seed and produces high amounts of transfat, typical article explaining it here: http://authoritynutrition.com/canola-oil-good-or-bad/ .  The one thing that can be said about canola/rape seed oil though is that it is very very cheap to produce and has neutral taste, probably because it has to be deodorized to remove its natural stink which supposedly is quite nasty.  
Ironically, with the exception of the algal oil, soylent has a very similar ingredient listing to lifestock feed.  http://fixyourgut.com/soylent-2-0-review/  This article also explains further issues with its vitamin and mineral content.
Algal oil is probably the one thing no one is complaining about.  The main problem is most of the rest of it. 
Have you done any research on synthetic vitamin absorption rates yourself?  I suggest you do so before you challenge my numbers.  Many synthetics have very very low absorption.  It's people who just blindly trust in the manufacturers and do not research or check that why they can get away with such bs in our food sources. 
I stopped eating wheat and got rid of 40 plus years of rather bad asthma.  For the first time in my life EVER, I could run and do sports and just lay down with completely free and normal lung function.  Constant suffication does teach pain tolerance but it's one lesson I am happy to leave behind.  And no more meds, I don't even carry them in my purse any more.  Improvement kicked in within 24 hours of giving up wheat, in 2 days, I could ditch the meds, and in about 3 months, all traces of congestion were gone.  Although my digestion has always been great and I am clearly not celiac, wheat is clearly very very bad for me. 

There is some good research behind it too.  DPP4 enzyme is responsible for inactivating circulating wheat and diary peptides.  Such peptides are scientifically proven to be bioactive, there is not debate on that one, the only debate is if the effect is powerful or not.  These peptides like to bind to morphine receptors which are all over the body including in the gut.  Binding at the morphine receptor changes functioning of the cell (just as binding with more powerful regular morphine does, but just a weaker version)  DPP4 enzyme is variable depending on genetics of the person, but heavy metals like mercury are shown to strongly inactivate them as well.  Chemical contamination is much higher in many populations in the industrial age.  Plus wheat and diary consumption is much higher, its in almost everything now.  PLus the type of cows we use in recent times have different peptides and potential more difficult to digest than the more hardy versions we once used.  (see A1 vs A2 cows)  End result is that DPP4 enzymes can be overwelmed in many people resulting and high levels of circulating exogenous bioactive peptides.  It's not voodoo, it's science. 

Can't stand the idea of giving up wheat and diary?  Hate the idea and react viscerally to it?  Remember that the bioactive peptides bind with MORPHINE receptors, ie they are addictive.  Many people have found out by giving up wheat and dairy for a few weeks just to see what would happen.  If nothing, one can always go back to eating it.  But most won't even consider living without them for even one day, that's now addictive they are.  
That logic would hold true in most cases for any NATURAL foods.  But humans are not able to digest grains of wheat in their natural state, it just passes through intact and the plant likes that way because we would poop them out and then they would grow.  Natural wheat is not something anyone eats.  Current wheat was created in the 60s.  Ever notice how the 'amber waves of grain' in the song are no longer present?   Current wheat is dwarf wheat with doubled chromosmes and novel types of proteins the body is not adapted for.  It's lower in minerals than the old Einkorn wheat.  It's also processed differently and celiacs have been shown to react much more strongly to the new wheat.  Even bread used to be slowly fermented with the old school yeasts.  Yeast partially digests the proteins in the wheat, making them more nutritious for us.  Current fast rise yeast does a much inferior job of it.  Also, we once soaked all grains to remove the phytic which is an antinutrient, but no one does that any more.  In short, whole wheat is not at all a natural food source for humans, it's impossible to digest in natural form, but the current versions all the more so.   It is hypothesized that humans had to resort to grain sources more and more though when populations exceeded what the natural environment was able to support.  Hence we had to start farming to survive and we had to learn to make things that were once inedible into something we could survive on.  Humans have made some genetic adaptations to such new sources but industrialization and very rapid changes in food sources since the 60s have far outstripped that adaptation.  Nuts and lettuce are mostly natural (if you don't count the breeding programs) but wheat consumption sure the heck is not.  
-Eva 

My cousin has cerebral palsy and has had to "eat" through a feeding tube for over half his life.  They just use a formula for this.  Long term liquid diet has actually been around for a long time for people with injuries or disabilities that make it so they can't eat, so this isn't anything new, really.  I'm sure there are studies done on how this kind of nutrition matches up.

Dude, there are just so many potential issues with that reasoning!  First of all Gautama was not omniscient, nor did he claim to be.  He was likely going mostly via common sense of his era, an era before knowledge of specific vitamins and minerals was known.  And although I am not an expert in the ancient food habits of that era, most likely all that was available back then was rice and natural foods, meats, vegetables, and fruits, the very similar kind of thing as I am advocating for consumption as most likely to be healthy (as long as you go light on the rice).  Gautama would not have spent time advocating against unhealthy crap processed chemical foods if such did not even exist in the first place and if neither did knowledge of such dangers.   Not to mention that it's hard to really say what Gautama said about food because we only know what was supposedly written down later out of memories of others long after his death.  He may have had tons more to say about food but it was not memorized as the most important and guarded for posterity, we have no way of knowing.  But interestingly, I did read that supposedly that Buddhists were allowed to ask for meat in that time, "if you were sick."  Was meat considered to have some kind of medicinal potential?  And finally, considering Gautama was said to have died from eating toxic food, it might suggestion he was no omniscient expert on nutrition.  ;-P  For these reasons, I personally think it's a bit of a stretcher to look for justification of artificial food drink consumption in the written down words of Gautama.  We have issues in this era that just did not even really exist in his time. 
-Eva

Unfortunately, troll and trolling have become very loaded lanuage. I think we should give Pawel the benefit of the doubt for just having fun and playing around.

Besides, what's so bad about man mammaries? He could get more dates or feed a hungry child!

I am suspicious of bs marketing on that one.  Soy protein isolate DOES contain isoflavones, which are the estrogen mimics of concern.  http://www.isoflavones.info/isoflavones-content.php .  Yes, the processing does reduce them by about 50% but the statement 'does not contain' would not be accurate.  Considering the maker of soylent is on record saying that canned vegetables are healthier than fresh and that formula is healthier than fresh breast milk, I would not blindly accept statements from this person as being 100% truthful, scientific, and correct.  The logic and science behind many of his statements seem almost nonexistant. 
-Eva

That's a potentially dangerous assumption.  WHile some aspects of blood make up may change easily, like white blood cell count, many aspects of blood composition are carefully regulated by the body, even at the expense of specific tissues.  Because blood is the lifeline of the body, it has priority, plus  standard blood tests only measure simple to measure aspects of blood, not vitamin status etc.  That means that standard blood tests often don't catch problems until they are well advanced.  This is especially true of younger indivudals who can often eat all manner of crap foods for years and years while stil maintaining good blood work for long periods of time.  There are people with all kinds of skin probs, weakness, digestion probs, etc who still have good bloodwork.  Cancer often does not show at all in blood tests.  Blood work is a very crude and insensitive indicator of health, you can be pretty sick, osteoporosis, ulcer, bad digestion, cancer, asthma, etc and still have good bloodwork.   You can't just assume health from bloodwork.  
-Eva