Talk:Soylent (meal replacement)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Open Source

Is the commercial edition of Soylent still open source? I couldn't find the "source" on the website. If it isn't, the claim should be removed from the article summary. Joelthelion (talk) 10:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree - Even the nutrients in the blog - http://robrhinehart.com/?p=424 - has the note "This was a prototype. While similar in spirit, the final soylent recipe differs in several ways and has been subjected to rigorous testing and expert evaluation". You can't find the actual nutrients anywhere. I'm going to remove this "open source". Please let me know if I'm wrong, anyone. Litehacker (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Old discussion reviewed—they have been providing the powder formula since 1.4, so I put "open source" back. --Artoria2e5 emits crap 03:16, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

Some non-logged in user nominated this article for deletion. I see no cause for deletion, the topic is plainly notable, and the citations are reasonable. Contrary to the procedure, I've removed the nomination to delete. stephan.com (talk)

A deletion debate is now in progress at WP:Articles for deletion/Soylent (food substitute). —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Now closed. English06 (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ingredients list

I understand the temptation to pick and choose interesting material from Rhinehart's blog to fill out the article or form conclusions in the encyclopedia's voice, but I'm afraid it's pure original research. There are plenty of good reliable secondary sources available. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure the ingredients list is original research? The article claims that Soylent is made from these ingredients. The authoritative source for that is Rhinehart's blog post. Rhinehart is doing original research, but we aren't. We're just reporting on his. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. According to policy a blog such as Rhinehart's isn't an authoritative source for anything except his own claims, and as a primary source, it shouldn't be used to make controversial claims in the encyclopedia's voice, such as what's in his formula or isn't in his formula. If the ingredients have been published in a reliable secondary source, that's OK, but I haven't seen one. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, if I understand you right, you're saying that Rhinehart's blog isn't a reliable source for the ingredients list, because it's controversial. Here's why I think otherwise. Soylent is whatever Rhinehart says it is. There's no controversy, because there's no mystery that can only be resolved by some independent party finding out what's really in Soylent. The ingredients list actually leaves some details purposely unspecified; the user has to fill those in. So, I think this is a case where a primary source is most appropriate. It's also a case where a self-published source is appropriate, because the ingredients list is Rhinehart's own definition of his own thing. What do you think? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think using primary sources is problematic, even with the best of intentions. WP:PSTS gives advice that they should be used "only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". Rhinehart's blog is full of wild claims and no so wild claims. Each editor has a different opinion about which claims are "uncontroversial". It might be one thing to have the article use attribution such as "According to Rhinehart..." etc. However you refuse to do that, and instead wish to have material gleaned from Rhinehart's blog written as fact in the encyclopedia's voice. So, I'm not sure I can agree with what you've done or how you're interpreting policy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you point out a specific problem with using Rhinehart's list of the ingredients as the source for the list of the ingredients? Have you found a specific controversy about it? From what I understand so far, this sounds like a classic case where a primary, self-published source is best (see WP:SELFSOURCE). Or are you just saying that you think in-text attribution would be better here than plain text with an in-line citation? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't need a specific controversy or problem. It's about what the SELFPUB source can and can't be used for, see WP:BLOGS and WP:SELFPUB. Since Rhinehart's blog is a vehicle to sell Soylent, pretty much anything he writes in it is self-serving, including a list of ingredients. A list which has not been verified by anyone - except Rhinehart. His blog *might* be used per SELPUB if Rhinehart's comments are clearly attributed as his own views, for example, e.g. Rhinehart claims Soylent is beneficial, Rhinehart writes that Soylent contains 39 ingredients, Rhinehart says he changed the formula of Soylent, etc. however we have plenty of reliable secondary sources that can do that for us. So the question remains, why use his blog at all? - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused because I don't see a connection with the point that Rhinehart's blog is the authoritative source on Soylent's ingredients. It sounds to me like we might be misunderstanding each other. I'm going to think about what you've said and come back in a couple hours and see if I can sort this out. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I can make it clearer for you: Rhinehart's blog is not considered an "authoritative" source. It is a source, to be used carefully per WP:SELFPUB, for his own views, if that. We should not be using someone's blog as a source for statements of fact made in Wikipedia's voice. I think this issue will likely become clarified once the article gets out of AfD and more editors become involved. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, this might be it: Are you thinking that Soylent is primarily a product that people have been buying from Rhinehart, so that only an independent source could verify Rhinehart's claims about what's in it, sort of like Kentucky Fried Chicken's (disputed) claim of "eleven herbs and spices"? Actually, the ingredients list is a specification, not an empirical claim. It suggests quantities of nutrients and possible forms in which to take them; it actually doesn't specify precisely what the ingredients have to be. For example, Rhinehart specifies 200 g of carbohydrates in one form or another, with the suggestion that they be some kind of oligosaccharide. Rhinehart started with maltodextrin and later switched to oat powder; both of those are compatible with the specification. Most Soylent is made by do-it-yourselfers who flesh out the ingredients list into an actual recipe and customize it to themselves. This discussion board is where people talk about it. Well, even if specification-vs.-empirical-claim isn't the misunderstanding, the idea that Soylent is something you're supposed to customize needs to be clarified in the article. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I see your point that there's really only one source for the information on what's in the product, but since we have no way to verify the accuracy or authenticity of the information in an independent source, I have to agree with LuckyLouie's idea that any claims based on the Rhinehart source need to be qualified as LuckyLouie suggests: with signal phrases such as "According to Rhinehart, ...". Memetics (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

One other thing: We do make the empirical claim that the specification shown on the article page is what Rhinehart arrived at after 30 days. WP:SELFSOURCE says "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field." —Ben Kovitz (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing

I added POV-check banner yesterday. My main concern is POV pushing. Some basic examples are "Soylent almost certainly lacks some nutrients critical for life", as opposed to something like "Soylent is believed to lack nutrients critical for life", and hand waving about "kidney damage". I am, however, not experienced with Wikipedia guidelines, so I would appreciate if someone more knowledgable would pitch in pitr (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is the "Criticism" section called "Dangers"? This seems completely unspecific and alarmist. When talking about politicians' policies they call it "Criticism" not "Dangers" [of adopting that certain policy].

Because in this case there are possibly (and likely, as per the reasons given in the article) DANGERS associated with this diet. Too migrate to a diet composed entirely of synthetically created nutrient drinks that has never been tested in any sort of academic setting is incredibly risky. There are hundreds of nutrients that are known to be required by the human body for optimal functioning, and perhaps many more that we are unaware of. Furthermore, there is a very specific balance required between the many nutrients, where too little or too much of one can disrupt the absorption of another. Well known examples of this are electrolytes. To properly rehydrate, you need to get a balanced amount of primarily potassium, magnesium, calcium, and sodium. Just taking sodium or potassium can worsen dehydration. That's probably been covered by the makers of the recipe, as it's very well known in sports nutrition circles. What's less well known are things like proper balancing of amino acid intake. Tryptophan, Tyrosine and several other amino acids compete for metabolism, using the same enzymes. Thus too much of one can block the absorption of others. There's actually no way to perfectly correct for this; ordinarily you just get more Tryptophan in one meal, and perhaps more Tyrosine in another. But the main problem is that the various soylent recipes have never undergone any sort of scientific analysis let alone controlled animal trials. There is no way of knowing whether they're safe long-term, and due to the complexity of the nutrition, it's quite likely they are missing several key micronutrients. The consequences of this possibly being flawed are enormous, a person could gradually deplete their body's stores of various nutrients, and then begin manifesting severe conditions a year or two down the line, such as neuropathy. Or insidious disorders that may not immediately be connected to nutritional deficiency could manifest, such as depression. In short, there are very real dangers to using this. It's incredibly risky and the stakes are high. LiamSP (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that it is possible Soylent may be missing critical ingreeidents, it is not Wikipedia's place to make such a judgement, for example the phrase "Soylent almost certainly lacks some nutrients critical for life and/or it may provide nutrients in inappropriate proportions, causing serious medical problems, particularly if used long-term." Should be replaced with something more along the lines of "Soylent has been criticized for lacking some nutrients critical for life and/or it may provide nutrients in inappropriate proportions, which could serious medical problems, particularly if used long-term." This removes the POV bias, however deserved it may be.

After another read through of the section, I have no problems with the section being named "Dangers." The second paragraph clearly shows that the risks involved with missing out in specific nutrients. That being said, I believe that the first paragraph reads as though the author is attempting to convince someone not to consume Soylent. As I stated above, that is not Wikipedia's place. I think the 1st paragraph needs a significant rewrite to remove the bias. 67.50.30.250 (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, it is not our place make such a judgement. That's why we go by what reliable sources say. The statement you quote is sourced. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much every source discusses the dangers. We reflect that coverage in the sources by covering the same information in roughly the same proportion in the Wikipedia article. "Has been criticized" is misleading and weaselly. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

There is no controversy that Soylent is almost certainly missing some essential nutrients and/or has things out of proportion. Rhinehart said: "I am reticent to provide exact brand names and instructions because I am not fully convinced of the diet's safety for a physiology different than mine."[1] The initial, minimal testing after success with a few men turned up problems with women: "The women are not as happy, reporting they still feel hungry. Clearly this still needs some tweaking."[2] They're raising money so they can do the research needed to find the problems with Soylent and fix them. "There are plans afoot for male- and female-specific formulae, as well as a vegan version. 'If we raise a lot, we could put money into formal testing and research,' says Mr Rhinehart."[3] "Stadler warns that although we know many of the essential nutrients in food, we don’t know everything and there’s a strong possibility that an elemental diet like this could miss something critically important."[4] "'I am no biologist though,' [Rhinehart] admits, 'and can’t isolate the placebo effect in a sample size of one.' He does accept, however, that Dr Jordan-Mahy’s concern about the complexities of nutritional absorption is sound. 'It’s one of the main reasons I get blood work so frequently.'"[5]

The section covers the facts about the dangers thoroughly and systematically: what they are, how severe they are, the level of certainty about them, the testing done so far to detect these dangers, and the actual problems that have occurred so far. A clear, forthright heading for that information is "Dangers".

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

How to summarize the dangers in the lead?

A few weeks ago, we had this sentence in the lead:

As of May 2013, Soylent has not been scientifically tested and is potentially dangerous.

User:71.228.201.169 removed it with no explanation. I'm not sure what the problem is. Here is what the source says: "WARNING: This diet is untested and potentially dangerous. It hasn't been studied and Rhinehart is doing his own self-testing without a doctor's help."

Considering how much the sources talk about the dangers of Soylent, and that we have an entire section about the dangers, we're violating both WP:NPOV and MOS:INTRO if the lead doesn't mention something about the lack of testing and why this is important. These facts also explain the need to get funding to do research, covered in the last sentence of the paragraph. We shouldn't be as heavy-handed as this (rather mediocre) source, but the lead needs to say something.

If the above sentence is objectionable, would someone please suggest better wording? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Do these facts have reliable sources?

I just did some clean-ups and found some unsourced facts. Does anyone have sources for these?

• "[medical foods] are not required to undergo premarket review or approval by FDA." "Additionally, medical foods are exempted from the labeling requirements for health claims and nutrient content claims under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990."

I deleted this because it seemed like argument rather than summary of sources. The source cited actually says, after explaining that medical foods are tricky to make because of problems with bioavailability, "That’s why it’s important to use products from real companies that have to obey FDA labeling regulations. There are real downsides to trying this stuff at home." Obviously, if there is a reliable, Soylent-specific source for the stuff I deleted, then let's add it back.

• "The act of chewing food releases hormones that affect appetite and the biological consequences of a liquid-only diet are not fully understood."

Is the second fact in a reliable source that's specifically about Soylent? (I may have missed it when I read the sources.) The point about chewing food seems borderline salient at best, even though it's sourced, so I just deleted the whole sentence.

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources about DIY and customization?

Has anyone come across any solid sources for the fact that Soylent is mainly a do-it-yourselfer phenomenon, and pretty much everyone who makes the stuff makes their own modifications to Rhinehart's basic recipe? I know this from all the activity on http://discourse.soylent.me/, but that's not a reliable secondary source. Currently, the article gives the false impression that Soylent is mainly a commercial product. It might become that in the future, but now it's mostly DIYers. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

What the average American spends on food

The article states that Soylent costs one fourth what the average American spends on food. As a source, it cites a Real Clear Science article. That article in turn cites a Gallup Poll as to what the average American spends on food. However, the the Real Clear Science author seems to have misinterpreted the poll, which asked about family spending, not individual spending. Wsqdx (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

"The development of Soylent has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the current state of the science."

Couldn't find anything in the source to support this. 121.99.41.64 (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed it. If anyone can source it, please do so. TippyGoomba (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"Ingredients"

Currently, the "ingredients" section lists nutrients rather than ingredients. "Sodium" is not an ingredient, "table salt" is. "Fat" is not an ingredient, "olive oil" is. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

I thought it was made from people? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 14:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC) I, personally, am disappointed that it isn't green. Also, is it true that the taste experience varies from person to person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.89.85.15 (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Isn't water an ingredient since it is a liquid? A solid form would be better since many millions of people world wide have no access to clean water. 192.122.237.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC) 63.89.85.15 (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I recognize that, as a Soylent employee, there is a conflict of interest in my editing this page, but we would like to note that the current formula does include Soy Lecithin. We have documented this on our blog, and hope that this helps explain the current formulation in detail. Thank you. SoylentJohn (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Cost

"Rhinehart claims to spend US$154.62 per month on Soylent.... Rhinehart has stated he would like to get Soylent down to a cost of US$5 per day." Mission accomplished. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

TechCrunch for medical facts

I flagged one of the citations that backs up a medical claim. It it using a tech blog as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.184.42 (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the assertion that cited Tech Crunch, as it is most definitely not a reliable source of encyclopedic information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpinzn (talk • contribs)

Outdated ingredients

I removed the "outdated" template as a new, complete list of ingredients and nurtient content have yet to be released. Per their main page (bottom of page):

We are almost done finalizing the Soylent formula that we will be shipping in January/February. Once that is complete, we will release a complete nutrient breakdown and ingredient list on blog.soylent.me

They have released some information such as micronutrient breakdown and other ingredients, but it is not clear if this is a complete list or not. Moreover, I cannot find any analysis of carbohydrates, fats, proteins, etc. that are often on the nutrition label.

The intro sentence to the section is clear that the listed ingredients are from the original formulation, so I see no problem with keeping the info as it is until a new, complete list is made public. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

They have released their final ingredients list: https://www.dropbox.com/s/l90jvmlgl14rj10/SoylentFinalNutrition.pdf. This page should definitely be updated to reflect this information. Adrianscholl (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Also found on their blog at http://blog.soylent.me/post/74770956256/soylent-1-0-final-nutrition EvergreenFir (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Cost comparisons vs alt nutrition sources

In the cost block, there's a sequence of numbers put up to compare Soylent vs some alternatives (Jevity and a family of four's thrifty spend) which I edited to divide the cost figure for the family of four, to bring it in line with the other comparisons. The edit has been reverted, so it's closer to source, but as it stands I think it's an ambiguous/leading comparison since the headline number for a family of four is well, multiplied by four making it look like Soylent is a quarter of the two alternatives provided so I've tried to break out the comparator a bit more clearly. Tanant (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Needs Rewriting to Improve Style

This article has slid back towards an unbalanced almost press-release styled form of writing that needs to be neatened. The writing constantly goes into flattering detail about the creator's design process rather than address the substance itself. 121.99.60.155 (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Value basis

I just noticed that on the paragraph for Ingredients is not stated to which quantity of food this is related. That means is this one pouch or one serving? Same issue on the Nutrition paragraph regarding the % Daily value. As in the pdf flyer from Soylent itself (http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0421/5993/t/4/assets/Complete-Soylent-Nutrition-Facts.pdf?28824), there should be a disclaimer that this is the average for a 2000 kcal diet and may vary depending on your personal lifestyle. ~Q~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.49.177 (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

"Regulated as a food"

It has been repeatedly added (and repeatedly removed as unsourced) that this stuff is "regulated as a food". (Recent edit summary: "Regulated as a food is IMPORTANT as many detractors claim it is regulated as a supplement. Wikipedia should be a correct factual reference.") If this is "important" to an encyclopedic article about the product, independent reliable sources will discuss it (and then we will be able to include it). If you need to point to labeling (or some other aspect) as evidence that it is regulated as a food, you are engaging in synthesis. Yes, Wikipedia is a correct factual reference of verifiable information. That we do not answer every charge made about the product is not something we can or should remedy. Someone, somewhere will want to include that it isn't organic/"all natural"/fair trade/cruelty free/vegan/available at Target/tasty/doesn't fit the color scheme of their kitchen/whatever based on synthesis from something on the label. We won't include that either. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree.

What is Carnation Instant Breakfast - a supplement.

What is Protein powder - a supplement.

What is Medical food - food. Yet it is stated that Soylent is *NOT* medical food.

Therefore it is unclear what Soylent *IS* - a food or a supplement. The article should make this clear.

It is not responding to 'charges'

That is not synthesis - that is clarity.

Dobbs (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary for the addition of the material made it abundantly clear that it was being added in response to detractors claims ("Regulated as a food is IMPORTANT as many detractors claim it is regulated as a supplement. Wikipedia should be a correct factual reference.").

For our purposes, Soylent is what independent reliable sources say it is. The argument being presented is this: "Soylent has labeling of type X + labeling of type X is for products of type Y = Soylent is product of type Y." reducing that to "A + B = C", this is very clearly synthesis. We do not have an independent reliable source saying "Soylent is Y." As a result, we cannot say "Soylent is Y." - SummerPhD (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

‘Substitute’

From the OED:

food |fuːd|

noun [ mass noun ]

any nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink or that plants absorb in order to maintain life and growth

Can anyone explain the assertion that Soylent is a ‘substitute’? 5.104.224.38 (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the confusion comes from the fact that during development Soylent was considered as a 'supplement' - as it combined vitamins and minerals (like a multivitamin), as well as fiber (such as Citrucal), as well as protein and carbs (like Carnation Instant Breakfast). Thus the assumption by some (typically 'opponents' of the invention) that subsisting on a 'supplement' was unwise. The inventor then made the decision to ensure it was regulated as food to address these concerns. :Dobbs (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

From the sources in the article, Soylent is:

• "an attempt to replace food entirely with a liquid shake"[6]
• "a nutrient-rich shake" ("The man who lives without food")[7]
• "formula...concoction...stuff...(a) drink"("Why You Never Have To Eat Food Again")[8]
• "A New Crowd-Funded Nutritional Drink...(a) nutritional drink (regulated) as a dietary supplement...powdered drink"[9]

"nutritional concoction...replacement for real food...product...low-prep diet...single-source diet...non-food diet...food-free diet"("Could Soylent really replace all of the food in your diet?")[10]

• "substance...concoction" ("go without food")[11]
• "a nutrient slurry in place of food...Meal replacement products"[12]

"(not) a wonder food...(not) a miracle diet...(not) regular food" ("Goop")[13]

• "a chemical concoction...potion...meal replacements" ("Who Needs Food When You Have Soylent?")[14]

(Parentheticals are from titles.)

Some of the sources seem to avoid calling it anything specific ("product", "potion", "concoction", etc.) Many separate it from "food", especially in titles.

IMO, Most common seems to be "shake". This seems fairly neutral for the title to me. That it avoids taking a direct stance on the food/supplement/replacement issue is a bonus for the article title. In the article proper, we call it whatever the sources being cited for the specific fact call it. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Article Title - Remove "Food Substitute" Label?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was rename to Soylent (drink).Frmorrison (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to include the label "food substitute" in the title of this article. There is no regulatory body (such as the FDA), or recognized medical or nutritional institution, or studies that deem soylent suitable as a "food substitute". The only organized body that seems to refer to soylent as a "food substitute" is the company that produces the product, which does not justify this label.

As I do not have to appropriate permissions (or I would just take care of this myself) I would like to suggest that someone change the title to this article to either "Soylent", "Soylent (food product)", or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.85.41.71 (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Soylent exists as a disamb page. As this article's subject is clearly not the most common use of the word, we cannot rename this article without the parenthetical. "Food product" doesn't work, as most reliable sources try to avoid calling it "food" (see above). I would suggest Soylent (shake). - SummerPhD (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I recommend removing the word "substitute" from the title of the article, and using the title Soylent (Food).Sjrsimac (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The move has been completed.Sjrsimac (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your move. The discussion is on-going. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

As detailed above, the independent reliable sources do not call it "food". In fact, many make it clear that they are saying it is not "food". I see "shake" and "drink" a few times each. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you contending that shakes and drinks are not foods? - Sjrsimac (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm contending that there have been competing claims that it is/is not various things. "Shake" and/or "drink" offer the distinct advantages of being sourced, verifiable and NPOV. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

What would convince you that Soylent is a food, and not a food substitute? - Sjrsimac (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

What follows is a quote from Soylent's website, where the emphasis added is mine.
"Soylent™ was developed from a need for a simpler food source. Creator Robert Rhinehart and team developed Soylent after recognizing the disproportionate amount of time and money they spent creating nutritionally complete meals. Soylent is a food product (classified as a food, not a supplement, by the FDA) designed for use as a staple meal by all adults. Each serving of Soylent provides maximum nutrition with minimum effort."
- Sjrsimac (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not about convincing me of anything. I continue to express no opinion whatsoever as to what it is, is not, might be intended for, could replace, etc. I am merely stating three verifiable facts: 1) There have been and are arguments as to whether it is a food, food substitute, food replacement, complete diet, whatever. 2) Independent reliable sources seem to stop short of calling it a food, as repeatedly demonstrated by all of the independent sources cited in the article (see above). 3) The only terms I found that are repeated in those sources are "shake" and "drink". (That these terms stay fairly clear of the petty dispute is a bonus, but not critical.)

In a recent example, an album of songs was released. ALL of the primary sources (the artist, the label, etc.) referred to it as a "movie" with "scenes". We call it an album with songs -- not because we decided that's what it is, but because that is what independent reliable sources call it. I am not advocating my position on what Soylent is. I am advocating that we call it what independent reliable sources say that it is. That dude calls Soylent "food" is immaterial. Independent reliable sources call it lots of different things. My review turned up two that independent reliable sources have used several times (and an apparent reluctance to call it "food"). I have no doubt that the manufacturer has an opinion as to what to call it, whether it tastes good, whether it's a good idea, whether it says people money, etc. Those opinions, though, are inherently biased. They may or may not be "true". We stick with what is verifiable. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It is verifiable that Soylent is a, "nutritious substance that people or animals eat or drink [. . .] in order to maintain life and growth."[15] Because Soylent fits the definition of food, it must be food. My reference to Soylent as food is not an acquiescence to Rob Rhinehart's marketing campaign, but an acknowledgement of what Soylent is: a nutritious substance that people eat or drink in order to maintain life and growth.
If Soylent is not a food, what is it? What is another example of a food substitute that is not a food? What property of a nutritious substance makes it food, and not a food substitute?
The example you provided of an artist calling his compilation of audio tracks a, "movie," as opposed to an, "album," is an example of a product's creator improperly categorizing his own work. The word, "movie," means, "A story or event recorded by a camera as a set of moving images and shown in a theater or on television; a motion picture."[16] Without images, the artist's product is not a movie, and audio-only artistic productions with musical intent are referred to as songs.[17] - Sjrsimac (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand that you feel strongly that we should call it a food. I also understand that because I seem to be in the way of that it seems that I am arguing it is not food. I am not arguing that it is or is not food. (It should be noted, though, that your interpretation makes vitamin pills a "food".) I am here to argue for calling it what independent reliable sources call it. They do not call it food. Quite the contrary, they seem to go out of their way to say it is not food. (To repeat, the independent sources in the article say: "an attempt to replace food entirely with a liquid shake", "The man who lives without food", "Why You Never Have To Eat Food Again", "replacement for real food", "non-food diet", "food-free diet", "Could Soylent really replace all of the food in your diet?", "go without food", "a nutrient slurry in place of food, "Who Needs Food When You Have Soylent?")

Yes, you have a definition for food. Let's call that "A". You have descriptions of Soylent. Let's call that "B". Can you now combine them to show that Soylent is a food -- conclusion "C"? No, you cannot.

A quick review of the editing history of this article, comments on the talk page, the sources cited and the website for Soylent show disagreement as to whether it is or is not "food", a "nutritional supplement", a "food replacement", etc. As a result, I fully support examining whether we should subscribe to one of those camps in Wikipedia's voice. Due to the disagreement, however, I am pushing for a verifiable, non-synthesis name. From my review of the independent sources in the article, the options I found were "shake" and "drink". Someone else might find something different. I welcome that discussion (though, of course, confirmation bias might apply for anyone looking, including me).

It is also possible that I am misreading and/or misapplying our policies and guidelines. I welcome that discussion as well.

Strong opinions about what Soylent is or is not -- however interesting they might be -- do not seem to be part of the answer here. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand your position better now, and thank you for taking the time to explain it to me multiple times. I was most convinced by the link the to WP:SYN. I cannot find evidence that the FDA is regulating Soylent as food. Actually, and this is a little worrisome, I can't find evidence that the FDA is regulating Soylent at all. Thank you again, Summer. - Sjrsimac (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with changing the article title to "Soylent (drink)". This seems, at least to me, to be the most accurate description of the product. While "shake" has been mentioned as a description in a number of articles, that description somewhat implies (again, this a personal perspective) that Soylent is somehow a snack-food or a junk-food. Also, "shake" is somewhat of a subjective definition. What exactly is a "shake"? How do we define it? Aside from its use in "milkshake" I am aware of no objective definition of the word "shake" with concern to food or food products. However, Soylent is unambiguously a "drink". It is liquid nutritional substance made for consumption.A dc zero (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

After a long conversation with SummerPhD, I believe Soylent is best called a "nutritional substance." I am waiting for a press release from the FDA indicating how they plan to categorize Soylent for regulation purposes. - Sjrsimac (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The independent sources call it:

• "shake", "liquid shake", "nutrient-rich shake" (three sources)
• "nutritional drink"/"powdered drink", "drink", "drink" (three sources}
• "replacement for real food", "meal replacement product", "meal replacement" (three sources)
• "concoction", "chemical concoction", "nutritional concoction" (two sources)

"low-prep diet"/"single-source diet"/"non-food diet"/"food-free diet"/"replace all of the food in your diet?" (one source)

• Single uses: "product", "substance", "concoction", "nutrient slurry", "goop", "potion", "formula", "stuff"n

I'm still seeing "Soylent (shake)" or "Soylent (drink)". "Soylent (meal replacement)" is a distant third, IMO. "Soylent (product)" is, I guess, possible. It doesn't seem to be descriptive though. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

What if we called the article Soylent (Meal Substitute)? - Sjrsimac (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with "Soylent (drink)"? It is more frequent in the sources and has one other !vote here.

Why "Soylent (meal substitute)" rather than "Soylent (meal replacement)" (to match the usage in the sources)? - SummerPhD (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, I would have to agree with Summer here and re-iterate my support for Soylent (drink). We are given a number of choices as to what to call Soylent based on the sources, so we should stick to those. The only additional point I would make (which was vaguely mentioned in my first message here) is that based on the options given to us we must define a set of criteria by which we determine the most appropriate option.

I would agrue against calling Soylent a "meal replacement (substitute, etc)" or "food" of any kind as I do not believe we have sources that are authoritative enough to define Soylent as such. In order to define any type of chemical product as a "food", a "meal", or something similar I would like to see a source similar to what the OP mentioned: a scientfic or regulatory body, rather than just a bunch of random media articles on the internet. These sources do not seem to have the authority or proper objectivity to determine what a food is or is not.

Additionally, I think a number of these names carry an connotation among most native English speakers that would make using them inappropriate. Among them would be "concoction", "substance", "slurry", "goop", "potion", "formula", etc. I would put "shake" among those personally, as I previously mentioned, but I don't think that would be a totally inappropriate label.

Finally, I think we need to consider out of all the options which is most appropriate based on definitions within the English language. If, for example, we have a musical instrument that in every way fits the definition of a guitar and we have five sources calling it a "guitar" and five sources calling it a "wizzlely-wob", it would seem to be appropriate to call the instrument a "guitar". In this case, none of the names used by any of the sources are used for good, specific reasons. All of the names are used for no reason other than the sources do not know what to call Soylent. Given that, "drink" (as "guitar") has a clear definition in the English language, and one that seems appropriate to Soylent. A dc zero (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, Adz, it seems you and I have come to the same answer for different reasons. Wikipedia does not generally recognize "authorities" in terms of how we refer to things. Rather, we tend to go with what is commonly used it reliable English-language sources. The "official" name might be "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" or "Federal Republic of Germany" (depending on the "authority" you choose, but to us it is "Germany". Who would be "the" authority for this product? The manufacturer? The FDA? The FTC? Regulatory agencies in other countries? I don't know what he puts on his tax returns, but "William Jefferson Clinton" will always be Bill Clinton to Wikipedia. (If this keeps you up at night, you'll need some 1,3,7-Trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione the next day.) I won't even mention disputed locations in the Middle East (oops).

Instead of deciding amongst ourselves who the all-powerful authority is and waiting for word from on high, we call things what independent reliable (English-language) sources call them: Exactly the sources we should be citing in the article. No, we shouldn't be using "random media articles on the internet" to name the article, nor should we be citing them -- UNLESS they are independent reliable sources. The IRS might be the authority to call him "Prince Rogers Nelson". Or perhaps it's the guy himself, who goes by "(unpronounceable symbol)". Maybe he's "TAFKAP" to his fans. To the majority of independent, reliable sources he's simply "Prince (musician)". The IRS doesn't call him a "musician", his fans call him an "artist" (The Artist Formerly Known As Prince). The reliable sources, though, call him a "musician". Various U.S. regulators might call Soylent various things: a food, a product, a product intended for human consumption, etc. Regulators elsewhere might have different names. All of them are "right", but none of that applies here. We generally go with the sources. If sources are evenly divided between "guitar" and "wizzlely-wob", I'd say we go with "guitar" because people know what a guitar is -- unless there are numerous sources clearly say it is not a guitar (as with Soylent and "food"). If a majority of sources call it a "wizzlely-wob" but the FTC thinks it's a "guitar", the FTC can go soak its head. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but my comment about "authorities" is intended more as a "consider the source" arguement. I could probably find 1,000 pages on the internet which claim that that September 11th attacks were planned and executed by the US government, or that God created the earth in 7 days, or that you can survive on nothing but some berry and lose 10 pounds in one week, but it doesn't mean that any of these sources are authoritative in any way. My concern mainly comes from claiming that something is "food" or a "meal" without some sort of verification. Consider that many long-standing nutrition products such as Ensure (which I would spectulate have had substantially more review as a food-stuffs) are not even labeled as "food" or a "meal". Now of course, you could find other similar nutritional products that are labeled as "food" or as "meals", but my point being is that labeling a product as a "food" or a "meal" carries a different weight than labeling something as a "beverage", "supplement", "drink", or "shake".

Now, given the options from citable sources, the point of my post is that an appropriate label should be decided based on various criteria. I have defined some criteria that I believe is appropriate for this selection. Others may disagree, and I am more than open to that discussion. However, all other things being equal, I am simply pointing out why I believe "drink" would be the best label for Soylent. A dc zero (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I prefer Soylent (Drink) over Soylent (food substitute), but only as a placeholder until there's a clearer grasp of what Soylent is. I predict that once the FDA officially categorizes Soylent, the article's title will be much easier to settle on. - Sjrsimac (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I would fully agree with this, unless anyone else has further objections. A dc zero (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No objections have been raised, move will be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A dc zero (talk • contribs) 13:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

References being removed

I have twice found this article listed at Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting after reference calls were deleted from the text, but the reference definitions were left behind in the reference section. I suggest that a better approach here would be to restore the reference calls and definitions, and to tag them with {{Self-published inline}}, {{Disputed-inline}} or similar. This would make it easier for other editors to assess the worth of the references while discussion is going on. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, a few of those were me. I'm new at this and I'll keep that in mind next time.

03:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A dc zero (talk • contribs)

Regarding the Taste of Soylent

I think we should provide more than one opinion in the section on taste, for sake of fairness:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/17/5893221/soylent-survivor-one-month-living-on-lab-made-liquid-nourishment

"But I was pleasantly surprised. The best way I can describe it is if you put a few tablespoons of peanut butter in a blender and filled the rest up with milk. It was considerably thinner than I’d expected, but still rich, creamy, and strangely satisfying. It had just the smallest tinge of sweetness. And at 38 grams of protein per serving, I wasn’t surprised that it consistently made me feel full."

"What did surprise me was that I never really tired of the flavor of Soylent. I expected that by the end of the first week, I’d be dreading every sip, but I actually fell into a groove where I looked forward to my next glass."

http://www.businessinsider.com/soylent-review-2014-7

"Soylent is tasty, even dessert-like. For a drink that purportedly contains all the nutrients the human body needs (which I immediately associate with gross-tasting vegetable smoothies), properly mixed Soylent has a taste resembling that of a vanilla milkshake."

[edit: not sure why this section is being appended to everything in the green box; if someone can move it where it belongs then please do so]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.216.31 (talk • contribs) 22:16, August 6, 2014‎

A newly registered editor (whether the above single-purpose IP or not) added some positive comments on taste from the two sources noted here. I added in the negative remarks from those same sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I am the newly registered user, and I thought the original article content deserved a more objective treatment. - Mprwik (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit - Meant to put more here. I am not the original poster above, but the citations seemed worthy. Further, Rhinehart states explicitly on Colbert that the purpose of the "minimal" flavor is to prevent taste fatigue, and invites users to add their own seasonings. That is a completely neutral and verifiable statement. Why was that sentence removed? - Mprwik (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I really don't see how taste is relevant as long as it passes the point of being disgusting. Really, those food critics or whatever act like some high-class auto show group of bullies that force a tractor manufacturer to bring their products and then make fun of them for not being as cool as their ferraris and lamborghinis. Soylent is made for a different purpose, people! Different, people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.139.103 (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Whether the taste is horrible (making it a challenge to drink), bland (tolerable to drink) or delicious (pleasurable to drink) is certainly relevant, as evidenced by the fact that multiple independent reliable sources discuss exactly this point. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Broader picture opinions

In the reviews we've cited for taste, a number of people are quoted on the overall experience of using Soylent (either to replace all meals or as a now-and-then meal replacement.

• "...the most joyless new technology to hit the world since we first laid eyes on MS-DOS."; "About a week and a half ago, I began drinking Soylent every day. I can’t recommend that you do the same. For a purported breakthrough with such grand plans for reshaping the food industry, I found Soylent to be a punishingly boring, joyless product. From the plain white packaging to the purposefully bland, barely sweet flavor to the motel-carpet beige hue of the drink itself, everything about Soylent screams function, not fun. It may offer complete nourishment, but only at the expense of the aesthetic and emotional pleasures many of us crave in food."; "It suggests that Soylent’s creators have forgotten a basic ingredient found in successful tech products, not to mention in most good foods. That ingredient is delight."; "Soylent produced gastrointestinal symptoms ranging from mildly irritating to perilous."; "Soylent’s biggest failing, though, is its stultifying utilitarianism."; "At first, as Mr. Rhinehart promised, I did find Soylent to be extremely convenient....That feeling faded. The longer I used it, the more Soylent began to feel like a chore."; "Most of all, I missed variety. Soylent’s instructions suggested adding peanut butter, fruit, vanilla extract or other flavorings to the drink. I did, but still, Soylent tasted pretty much the same from day to day — like gritty, thinned-down pancake batter, inoffensive and dull."[18] (some of this shows up under "Taste", but some of what is there seems to be broader: "punishingly boring, joyless product" refers to packaging, taste and color.)
• "I found that objects in and around my kitchen were being coated in fine powder."; "It’s a rough process, and I expected it going in. I had three or four bouts of moderate digestive distress — yes, gas. But the real problem is that Soylent ignores the social and entertainment value of eating: food is not merely sustenance, it’s a tightly woven part of our everyday lives.... A strict diet of beige liquid fundamentally changes the patterns of your daily life, and not entirely for the better. It isolates you in ways you may not necessarily consider."; "And, social element aside, it’s hard to overstate just how incredible food really is.... On Soylent, a walk through town becomes an excruciating journey past sights and smells — teases of a culinary world that you’re entirely cut out of."; "What did surprise me was that I never really tired of the flavor of Soylent. I expected that by the end of the first week, I’d be dreading every sip, but I actually fell into a groove where I looked forward to my next glass. And it was nice recouping significant time otherwise spent looking for and eating food — perhaps an hour a day or more."; "So it’s a trade-off between efficiency and, well, living. Soylent isn’t living, it’s merely surviving."[19] (We have that boiled down to "'pleasantly surprised' with the 'rich, creamy, and strangely satisfying' flavor,".)
• "Soylent is cheap, easy, nutrient-rich, and curbs your hunger."; "Soylent is tasty, even dessert-like.... properly mixed Soylent has a taste resembling that of a vanilla milkshake."; "I'm only running the dishwasher every four or five days."; "I've noticed a big improvement in my overall mood and wakefulness each morning."; "I never felt hungry."; "Soylent is dirt cheap."; "others have cited being excessively gassy upon integrating Soylent into their diets. This seems to be the exception, not the rule."; "Fear of the unknown. There's still no reasonable consensus on how a person 'should' eat....I readily confess a certain degree of fear in taking my diet into my own hands so drastically. But nothing hurts, I feel quite all right, and I'm enjoying having some more time and money at the end of each day."; "It feels like typing in a productivity cheat code."[20] (We've reduced this to "likened it to that of a vanilla milkshake".)

Thoughts? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Honestly I find a lot of those quotes extremely subjective, and trying really hard to bias negative. Complaints that Soylent is missing "aesthetic and emotional pleasures many of us crave in food", for example, because "many of us" does not include me or like-minded others who do not take particular pleasure in the tedium of food acquisition, and would rather instead spend our time and energy doing things we enjoy. And claims that Soylent "isolates" you are flat out false, since it does not stop you from having social meals when you want them - that was an artificial restriction the reviewer put upon himself, suggesting a clumsy attempt at a narrative agenda on his part. The "coating of fine powder" issue struck me as particularly puzzling, considering the effort to wipe a counter is orders of magnitude less than that of grocery shopping or cleaning up after cooking. Such narratives challenge any sense of genuine neutrality, in my opinion. I would prefer to keep the article objective. - Mprwik (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

All of this is from four sources: Two that were previously cited for taste (the New York Times and Stephen Colbert's interview) and two that you selected to extract positive statements about taste. Some of it is negative, some of it is not. Yes, it is subjective (and cannot be said to be "flat out false"). Reviews are subjective and your opinions may certainly differ. That is obvious and hardly the point.

Soylent is a highly unusual product. Questions about how it tastes, what it's like to try to live on Soylent instead of food, etc. are certainly relevant and encyclopedic. The question would be sources to use. At the moment, we have Stephen Colbert, The New York Times, The Verge and Business Insider. While I rather suspect the first two were selected based on the limited availability of sources at the time and the last two were likely selected while in search of positive comments, they seem to be a reasonable group for the moment to me. Previously, you had injected a completely unsourced positive spin[21] and, when challenged, argued it was supported by your reading of user comments on the product's website[22]. While I'm trying hard to assume good faith, I strongly suspect you are having difficulty looking at the sources objectively. Other opinions? - SummerPhD (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I realize that the fact that I just today got around to creating a wikipedia account might look suspicious, but those anonymous comments were not me, for the record. I just happen to agree with her/him. - Mprwik (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Any other comments on the additional material from these existing sources? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Veg*an?

There's a quote higher up on this talk page saying that there are plans to make a vegan version of Soylent. That statement implies that the current version isn't vegan. Why not? The article is curiously coy about what the ingredients are; the only ones mentioned are rice protein, olive oil, and salt, which looks pretty vegan to me. So what's in this stuff? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much that we're being "coy" about anything. I don't see where independent sources really discuss the ingredients and we currently don't discuss it. The "oil packet" (for essential fatty acids) is canola oil and fish oil.[23] Without that, it isn't nutritionally complete. With it, it is not vegan or vegetarian. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, after posting the question above I looked around some more at the Soylent website and found that it's that website, rather than Wikipedia, that's being coy about what's in it, but it does mention fish in the list of potential allergens. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The article currently mentions version 1.2 removing the fish oil to make it vegan. If it had fish oil, it wasn't vegetarian in the first place. Fish are animals! I've never met anyone claiming to be vegetarian who ate fish. If nobody has a better idea, I'll change it myself soon. 188.29.164.253 (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you intend to change. The article does not say that the earlier version (with fish oil) was vegetarian or vegan, only that version 1.2 (after the removal of fish oil) is vegan. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Omega-3 fatty acids

This was listed under non-essential ingredients. Omega-3 fatty acids are an essential nutrient, so I've changed it.

POV

I inserted a POV tag, as despite there being a clear consensus on this page that a "dangers" section should be included there is absolutely no mention of any potential health implications of replacing all food with one drink; furthermore, it appears from this discussion that there once was such a section that has been quietly removed (yet I can find no such revision in the history). To say that the medical consensus unanimously highlights the necessity of a varied diet to maintain good health is so uncontroversial that it would be patronising for me to even provide a reference here, and yet, based on this article, the assertion that it is completely safe to replace all food with this one product can only even be challenged by reading between the lines: the unverified, unscientific personal research of one unqualified person with a clear bias appears to be literally the only non-anecdotal evidence that exists to challenge the overwhelming weight of authority that a varied diet is, in fact, important. As well as violating the "good research" policy of neutrality, this is a clear issue of undue weight (as is the inclusion of two nutrition sections; most food products don't even get one), and further constitutes "stating [a] seriously contested assertion ... as fact". Further POV issues include most sources cited being the actual manufacturer (clear bias in sources), and, the relevant research clearly not following the scientific method whilst flying in the face of accepted medical knowledge, there is a strong argument for noncompliance with pseudoscience policy. As-is, the article reads like an advert, being only slightly more neutral than the manufacturer's website and largely duplicating the information therein, and is completely worthless for anybody seeking neutral, verifiable information about a controversial product. 82.20.156.31 (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding this. I hadn't even considered this omission but it's obviously really important. Now, if we were going to add such a section, what sources would we use? A lot of the news coverage is pretty weak, and you can't use a synthesis of sources about liquid diets in general to talk specifically about Soylent. Steven Walling • talk 18:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we can start with the most obvious things: people with serious health conditions requiring dietary restrictions should probably think twice about using Soylent alone, shouldn't they? On another note, this article has some sources that could be used: http://www.popsci.com/article/science/what-happens-when-mice-eat-nothing-powdered-food --BurritoBazooka (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Many of the sources given on the page itself highlight the lack of evidence for the safety of a "food substitute" (for example:"Can Soylent, A New Crowd-Funded Nutritional Drink, Back Its Claims? Eat All A Healthy Body Needs For $9/Day"; furthermore, a cursory Google search for "importance of a healthy diet" provides a myriad of authoritative sources saying that a varied diet is essential for good health - and, I believe that this fact is so uncontroversial that it would be perfectly compliant with the "necessary assumptions" policy on NPOV to rewrite the article based on this assumption. I have been meaning to make certain changes, but don't have much time at the moment. Here's what I'd do:

• Mention (with a citation) in the intro that the the medical consensus is that a varied diet is important;
• Immediately follow mention of the creator's research in the intro with the statement from the above source that this evidence does not suggest that it is safe to replace all food with Soylent;
• Merge both nutrition sections to prevent undue weight;
• Introduce a section on "Soylent as a food alternative", incorporating:

• Brief introductory discussion on this intended function of the product (noting, for balance, and as many proponents point out, replacing all food is not necessary to use Soylent)
• "Health" subsection, highlighting all research that exists suggesting that it is safe to replace all food - ie, research conducted by the creator and seller of the product, a computer engineer who once intentionally "massacred" (his words) the essential flora and bacteria in his gut, contrasted with the statement in the above source that this evidence does not support the conclusion and followed by a brief comment from any of the many (far more authoritative) sources stating that a varied diet is important;
• "Lifestyle" subsection, contrasting the efficiency benefits advanced by proponents and the manufacturers with the lifestyle-related criticisms on most of the news articles cited on the page, and also encompassing the existing "Cost" section (which reads mor elike marketing material than an encyclopedia entry).

I believe that this would solve the balance issue - although it represents a clear "anti-Soylent" swing, it essentially amounts to nothing more than contrasting marketing sources with accepted scientific fact, which an objective article always should.82.20.156.31 (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the first three of my proposed changes; this at least highlights that there is no clinical evidence that Soylent is safe as a food alternative, but I still think that something as radical as a "food alternative" warrants far more detailed medical discussion. BurritoBazooka's source and the Medical Daily article are a good start. Would be interested to hear thoughts on the new section I suggest above.82.20.156.31 (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"Controversy" section

I removed the entire "Controversy" section as its only sentence made implications that were not backed up by its source. The source discusses the importance of getting a variety of nutrients, but says nothing on the topic of meal replacements that aim to fulfill all nutritional requirements such as Soylent. The article was irrelevant to any controversy with regard to Soylent, and the sentence incorrectly implied that Soylent is not a varied nutritional source. Conker The King (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conker The King (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Soylent alone is not a varied nutritional source. It is a single source. The fact that it encompasses varied nutrients does not negate this. The reason that nutritionists, without fail, always recommend a varied diet (which means you should not get all of your RDI of nutrient X from source Y, as a soylent-only diet would entail) is that the science is actually quite poorly understood, and to suggest - without clinical trials - that man can, in fact, live by bread alone betrays a dangerous disregard for the most elementary principles of medical science. I am extremely suspicious of the frequency with which any edits pointing out that Rhinehart's claim's regarding the safety of the product are completely unfounded are reverted - some people rely on Wikipedia for factual information, and where the topic is health it is incredibly irresponsible to present pseudoscience and marketing material as uncontested fact.212.139.38.194 (talk) 11:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Your argument is based on your beliefs and interpretations. Is a bowl of salad one source or several? The "varied diet" recommendation is saying that a diet of broccoli and an occasional taco is better than a diet of broccoli alone. How this applies to a product like Soylent is unclear. It might be irrelevant -- whether or not Soylent is nutritionally complete may not be addressed by this one maxim. "Don't drink and drive" is good advice but does not address whether or not playing with matches is a good idea.

Wikipedia will not decide whether Soylent is a dangerous product that will surely kill most of the Silicon Valley. Wikipedia will not decide if it is a boon to all humankind and the wave of the future, delivering complete nutrition, convenience and cost savings. (In all likelihood, it is somewhere in the middle.) Wikipedia will report what independent reliable sources have to say about the subject. We won't produce a stew from some of the ingredients and label it "The Truth". - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That is all, well and proper for Wikipedia, however, can the product actually be considered food when it failed to deliver 100% RDA of essential vitamins? From the charts in the article and the company website, 100% RDA would range from 4 to 6 drinks, depending upon powder or liquid. Unless the servings are for that number of servings per day, that would lead to the product actually being a supplement. Your thoughts?Wzrd1 (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. (Incidentally, carrots are generally considered food but do not provide 100% of the RDA of protein, B12, etc.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy is an improvement, in this instance, carrots are not described as a complete meal replacement. Or do we accept any claim, regardless of the accuracy of the claim? Not trying to start a disagreement, just checking policy.Wzrd1 (talk) 09:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If independent reliable sources state it is a "complete meal replacement", we say it is a "complete meal replacement". If independent reliable sources differ on whether it is or not, we should report those differing views. If dependent sources (e.g., someone from the maker of the product) says it is a complete meal replacement and we feel the claim is relevant, we say that Joe Blow says it is a complete meal replacement.

I glanced briefly at the article but did not immediately see what text you were concerned with. Can you point me toward it? - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Largely, it's the nutrition section, where the percentage RDA is far below the 100% mark with less than 5 - 7 servings. I'll review at a rest stop, as we're relocating today, what independent sources have written. Perhaps the difference in my thoughts is the difference of eating three ham and cheese sandwiches a day is eating food, but far from meeting 100% RDA on many essential nutrients.Wzrd1 (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Carbohydrate/fat/protein ratio?

The articles states this ratio as follows:

"carbohydrate/fat/protein ratios of 43/40/17, made so considering the advice of F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer, M.D., a professor of medicine at Columbia University.[21] Version 1.5, introduced in June 2015, further adjusted the ratios to 45/40/15" - doesn't this amount of fat sound rather high? Perhaps this means not the ratio of fat by weight but the number of calories from each source?

The nutrition facts shown in the photos give the following breakdown:

Soylent 1.6 powder:47 g / 25 g / 25 g

Soylent 2.0 liquid: 37 g / 21 g / 20 g

Marchino61 (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Fat has 9 calories/gram; protein and carbs are 4/gram.

By percentage (and my math) from those numbers, that's:

37% carbs/44% fat/19% protein for 1.6 and

35%/45%/19% for 2.0.

My numbers are thrown off by rounding in the number of grams and my own rounding to full percentages. It's not dead on, but close enough that the percentages quoted are likely by percentage of calories.

The photo actually used for the 1.6 powder shows slightly different numbers:

47 g carbs (51 g total - 4 g fiber) / 24 g fat / 21 g protein. My math puts that at

39% / 44% / 17%

Again, not dead on, but the variance seems to be within the realm of rounding. No reason to doubt the sources here, AFAICT. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Drink?

Should the page still be Soylent (drink) even though they are now introducing things like Soylent Bar? Perhaps it should be moved to a more accurate page, such as Soylent (meal replacement) or something like that? Cardsplayer4life 2ndverse (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Last we discussed this was 2 years ago at Talk:Soylent_(drink)#Article_Title_-_Remove_.22Food_Substitute.22_Label.3F. At that time, the most commonly used description was "drink". Our article currently discusses the drink as the primary topic, with the spin-offs as after thoughts. I'm not immediately seeing a compelling reason to change the title, as the drink seems to be the primary topic here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I would concur at the moment that 25% of the products not being technically a "drink" does indeed constitute a minority. (However, I do not agree the pejorative phrase "after thought" is an accurate descriptor.) Since they will likely be introducing additional SKUs in the future, I just thought it would be good to more accurately reflect in the title that "Soylent" can include things other than drinks. "Meal replacement" probably isn't the best either (it was just the first thing I thought of), but there are probably other ways to describe it that doesn't just limit it to drinks since it is now being expanded. Cardsplayer4life 2ndverse (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

(I do not mean to imply anything about any of the products by saying "after thoughts". I am saying that our article -- following the lead of the sourcing -- mainly discusses the liquid and powdered drinks.)

My opinion is based not on the number of products offered, but on the weight of coverage reflected in the article. Our current intro: "Soylent is an open source (1.4–1.6[1]) meal replacement beverage, advertised as a "staple meal", available in both liquid and powdered forms." Other than the photos and nutritional info boxes, we don't have anything to say about the coffee version and the bar other than bare descriptions and when they came out. If that were all we had on the liquid and powder, this article would not survive. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Try "food". From the earliest 1.1 release notes to the recently-updated (to include new products) What is Soylent? FAQ (oh glitch -- they used "drink" and forgot about bar in the italicized quotation, but it's just a quotation from something legacy, right?), Soylent has always been using simply "food" to refer to itself, while "drink" is generally used as a verb in e.g. "ready-to-drink" and "drinking vessel". --Artoria2e5 emits crap 13:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Good, they fixed that glitch. Now it's food everywhere.--Artoria2e5 emits crap 18:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The article name is fine for now, the bar version is not even been released yet. The new coffee drink is still a drink. Perhaps in the future, a new article can be created for the non-drink Soylent products. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The bar was released today. (right after you wrote that! haha) Their social media person said that they will eventually be introducing many different flavors of Soylent Bar as well as other "form factors" (whatever that means), so I am not sure how that should be organized as they are released. Perhaps a split-off article is best, as you suggest. Cardsplayer4life 2ndverse (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

A +1 for this proposal, since I was thinking about it when I opened the talk page too. P.S. I was considering (food). --Artoria2e5 emits crap 00:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd be ok with "food" as well since it could also encompass the solid form factors they are now introducing. Really, anything besides "drink", which is quickly becoming outdated. Cardsplayer4life 2ndverse (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I should write a move request to sum this up then. --Artoria2e5 emits crap 18:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Cardsplayer4life 2ndverse, Frmorrison, and SummerPhDv2.0: #Requested move 9 September 2016. --Artoria2e5 emits crap 23:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 September 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Soylent (drink) → Soylent (food) – "Food" is the preferred word used by Soylent to describe itself in their material including release notes and FAQ (see Talk:Soylent (drink)#Drink?.) The "drink" generic class assignment has become obsolete with the release of Soylent bar. Artoria2e5 emits crap 18:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Artoria2e5 and the fact that there's a solid version as well Drsmoo (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Artoria2e5. --Frmorrison (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support per discussion above. Cardsplayer4life 2ndverse (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Promotional tone tag

I tagged this article "written like an advertisement" (ADVERT hatnote). It is glowingly positive about the product, mentions names of people involved with the product, and contains large amounts of extra information that just doesn't seem to be notable. Does the article really need to say how Version 1.4 differed from Version 1.5? I understand this stuff is trending, but every single liquid-form meal replacement differentiates itself from the others with its marketing campaign and not with the product. They are all quite similar.Roches (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

And mostly primary-sourced, too - this is not noteworthy information, there's no evidence anyone outside the company covers this - David Gerard (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I remove the advert hatnote a few days ago, I do not agree that it is a glowing review of the product. However, it does need more 3rd sources. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Roches, are you sure that meal replacements differentiate only by marketing and not by product? The individual versions of commercial Soylent have been quite different from each other: it used to contain fish oil in a separate container, which you had to mix in a blender; the current version gets its fat from algae; etc. Also, there is a whole DIY soylent movement, with lots of people making their own, with wildly varying recipes. The main idea of soylent, as I understand it, is to make food nutritionally "modular"—vary whatever you like, to customize it to your own unique nutritional needs. The article currently mentions nothing about that. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Long ago, I collected information from a bunch of independent sources, much of which went into a now-deleted section titled "Dangers". That was during the early DIY days, before there was a commercial product, so some of that information is probably out of date by now, but it ought to suggest ways to find more-current sources. Some of it might still apply, like the now-deleted sourced claim about nutritional science being incomplete, and this now-deleted article in The Economist. Certainly facts about the early history of soylent are still relevant.

Please, folks, keep Wikipedia neutral. Report information in a way that is proportionate to the topic's coverage in all reliable sources; see WP:BALASPS. Some of it's going to be negative, but you still have to give it appropriate weight—and not just summaries that have been flushed of all detail, like "There may be social drawbacks of living on a Soylent only diet." Wikipedia-editing is for encyclopedists, not propagandists.

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Nootropic

L-Theanine is as much a nootropic as amphetamine. The cognitive enhancement crowd might like to talk about it that way, but the truth is it's a GABAergic drug in the form of a free amino acid. --John Moser (talk) 13:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Nutrition data or promotion material

User Bgwhite keeps removing the nutrition data and saying that it is promotional material. I feel that the nutrition data is factual and not promotional in nature. The data has been included for a long time on the article, and it would be detrimental to lose it now. Please offer opinions on the matter. Cardsplayer4life 2ndverse (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It's excessive, and gives the article the appearance of a Soylent sales brochure. Which is probably because it's identical to indistinguishable from their promotional material. (I note that you claim authorship of the images at Commons; while simple fonts etc may not be subject to copyright, wholesale reproduction of the label is stretching it somewhat. Unless, of course, you also designed the label for the company, in which case I would expect to see a coi declaration or similar.) The page is overloaded with these promotional-style images and boxes, when a simple link to the company's relevant page/s would suffice. This should be an encyclopaedia article about the product, not a technical data sheet. Keri (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Just because something is true, doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Just because it has been around awhile, doesn't mean it can't go. Wikipedia articles are always changing. First and foremost, this is an article about the company, with products secondary. A mention of the products and a short description is fine, but going with nutritional labels and nutritional tables is getting too much and is not encyclopedic. It becomes promotional. Bgwhite (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

While I agree with your general opinion that the labels are excessive, I think saying the article is about the company first is excessive. As the sources seem to support, their main product is far more notable than the company. I'd think the average reader is more interested in knowing if it is healthful and what it tastes like rather than the company's balance sheet. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Not what I said. I said mentioning the product is fine, but there comes a point where it is too excessive. Most consumer product companies have fewer sources than the products and readers would be more interested in the product. Bgwhite (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with removing the nutritional material (it's all boring 25%/20% after all), but what happened to these per-product {{infobox food}} templates? If someone wants to merge them to one single box, at least use a product image, not a company logo. And find somewhere in the infobox for the macronutrient and GI data. --Artoria2e5 contrib 16:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted the latest that added prices back into the article. I reverted based on WP:NOTCATALOG. Bgwhite (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 27 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus against a move. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Soylent (food) → Soylent – To be sure, the nutritional drink should show a prominent link to the film and disambiguation page, but I think it is unlikely that people are seeking the eponymous meal from the Harry Harrison novel. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a malformed multipage move request. The destination name is already occupied, and the nominator has not suggested what to do with it. —BarrelProof (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: If we had to pick a primary topic for "soylent", I suggest it would be the film. There is also the book on which the film (and the name of the drink and the two bands and the song) is based. A move to Soylent (drink) might be desirable, since this is a drink, not food eaten in solid form. (I'll admit, though, that this article has more page views than I expected.) —BarrelProof (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The article was formerly named Soylent (drink) and the consensus was to rename it since there was a Soylent solid food bar.--Frmorrison (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Soylent now refers to a 2013 product ripping off the name of the human-flesh food of a cult film? Don't think so. Soylent (beverage) would be preferable. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "Soylent (beverage)" might be better than "Soylent (drink)". —BarrelProof (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

There were Soylent Bars in the past, but the product was recalled. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Frmorrison: right, I see that in the article. But Soylent (food) would presumably still redirect to (beverage)? It's just a suggestion. But since the Soylent (bar) no longer exists (beverage) might still be more helpful. I don't know. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Current disambig page is more helpful; nominator is making an assumption about the popularity and global reach of a hipster food fad being greater than that of the fictional food from which it borrowed its name. I would support this page being moved to the more accurate Soylent (meal replacement). Keri (talk) 10:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, Soylent (food) is highly ambiguous, since that description also fits the food in the film and the book. —BarrelProof (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

While the current title could work with the food shown in Soylent Green, if the person was thinking about the movie they could click the link by "for other uses". --Frmorrison (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Soylent, the drink, is not necessarily the primary topic and the target page already has content. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would only think of the food from the film. No primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Follow-up comment: I didn't notice any clear opposition to the suggestion to disambiguate the topic by moving it to Soylent (beverage) or Soylent (drink). It seems clear that Soylent (food) is highly ambiguous. Should a new RM be submitted for consideration of that suggestion? —BarrelProof (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

If you want to rename the article, someone needs to make a move request just like this one. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it is not uncommon for an RM discussion to end up moving an article to a different name than what was suggested by the nominator. But if you think it's necessary, I'm willing to proceed with that approach. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. The alternative disambiguator (meal replacement) should be considered; neither food nor beverage has consensus; no move at this time. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Soylent (food) → Soylent (beverage) – As discussed in the other recent RM discussion that was just closed, the current name is highly ambiguous with the food of the same name in the well-known book and film. The product is also a drink, not a solid food. (Although there was a solid bar sold under this brand name for a while, it was not the primary form of the product and it has also been discontinued.) —BarrelProof (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support clearly moves away from the film's fictional food. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support move. There is a need to avoid ambiguity with the fictional product.  ONR  (talk)  11:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Current title could confuse this drink with the green food version. —  AjaxSmack  19:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• Disagree The article was moved about six months ago from drink to food, see Talk:Soylent_(food)/Archive_1#Requested_move_9_September_2016. The bar will be sold again if the formula can be changed to not make people sick and the bar product has remained on the website even since the recall. In addition, Rosa Labs refers to Soylent products as food Soylent FAQ/. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Soylent (meal replacement) is a more accurate target. Keri (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That seems fine to me. Although it might technically also apply to the food in the film (and book), it seems so formal and specific, using the specialized term of the meal replacement article, that I don't think people would expect it to lead to Soylent Green. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Soylent is termed "food" on its packages. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Please note that Wikipedia does not follow "official" sources; it follows common usage in independent reliable sources, and this is just a disambiguation term, not part of the name of the topic. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 20 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Soylent (food) → Soylent (meal replacement) – Submitting another RM as suggested by the closer of the previous RM and by others (with no objection expressed in either RM). The product is primarily a beverage, not a solid food, and the alternative disambiguation term seems less likely to be confused with the food in the film and book. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support move per previous RM. It's certainly odd to need to avoid confusion with a fictional product, but the fictional product is the more well-known one.  ONR  (talk)  12:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support move More accurate; allows for "food", "drink" and "beverage". Keri (t · c) 15:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.