There is a false all-or-nothing mentality being forced on Soylent. Part of this is Soylent's original marketing as a "food replacement". Part is their present refusal to make their product taste better. But part is our cultural unfamiliarity with separating utility from luxury eating.
I'm a foodie. I delight in trying new dishes, restaurants and cuisines. I'm also a marked extrovert. I constantly seek out social settings and experiences. Combined with my ineptitude at cooking and address in Manhattan, we have why I eat one to three meals out a day. I manage the healthfulness of my diet with simple rules. Salads for lunch, finish all the greens on your plate before moving to other things, defaulting to seafood over red meat, etc.
But this comes at a cost, both in dollars and in time. Many times, a meal will go half eaten, because I have to rush out for a call. Other times, dinner gets pushed out so late that the only options aren't healthy. Yes, I could schedule meals into the day, but sometimes I prefer doing other things. And it's not just work! I feel starved during film festivals, too, between full schedules and my refusal to feed on solely popcorn and tapas for two weeks.
I don't think too many people will ever seriously replace a majority of their meals with something like Soylent. But even shifting my weekday lunches and late-night snacks from salads, paninis and starving to something cheap, healthy, and available would be welcome. A prerequisite to this would be Soylent not tasting like pancake batter. Utility doesn't have to be unpleasant. But there is a place for this amongst people who love food, love people, and aren't necessarily workaholics.
Soylent launched with claims of being a total meal replacement.
People mentioned all of the existing similar products.
Soylent supporters said that those products are only supplements, and you could if you wanted live on mothing but Soylent. (Those people are wrong about the other products - you can live on some of them).
Now some Soylent supporters are saying "of course you wouldn't live on it. It's just for supplemental use." In which case, what advantages does Soylent have over all the other products?
Other products come in a range of flavours; you can get unflavoured versions; you can get savoury versions; you can get formulations designed for naso-gastric feeding and, importantly, they've got many dietitians and registered nutritionists working with them. (I realise that Soylent have nutritionists now.)
There are plenty of products available to you today that you could use tha do mot taste like pancake batter. They're not particularly pleasant.
I really don't get how they can't make the time to grab a sandwich .. you can eat it in about 3 minutes, and even a supermarket one will taste alright - the keyboard break will probably make even workaholics more productive.
I would recommend against getting too many calories for too long from something like Soylent. One issue people are missing is Wolf's law: bone grows into stress. You want strong knees and ankles? Run. If you don't chew you will end up with a glass jaw and no teeth. This is a common problem in the elderly: they start loosing a couple teeth and they're quickly all gone because they modify their eating choices to avoid foods that have become difficult to chew.
A. Cheap.
B. Healthy.
C. Pleasurable.
D. Fast/Easy
Pick three.
ABC = Homecooked meals, ACD = fast food, BCD = eating out, ABD = Soylent. Not complicated. Soylent provides a specific set of design tradeoffs that suit certain situations better than the alternatives.
At this point I'm skeptical that Soylent fulfills B, as healthy diets include a lot more than 30-40 ingredients in the form of enzymes and nutrients that aren't "essential" but aid metabolism. But I appreciate the fact that they're aiming for ABD and hope they can achieve it as the data rolls in over time.
If it tastes like gritty pancake batter, it can't be any worse than a diet of brussels sprouts, turnips, rutabagas, radicchio, eggplant, etc.
[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.]
Christ, it's as if he's willfully ignored everything; that's the POINT of Soylent, to give the option of a functional meal not for pleasure, so that you actually have a choice whether. Right now you don't, you have non-nutritious meals that don't take preparation time and are cheap, and nutritious meals that take vast amounts of time to prepare and/or are generally more expensive to acquire/prepare.
Now you have a third choice, complete nutrition at cost, minus the pleasure associated with the above two choices.
Right - Soylent will be successful based on how it defines its mission, not as a replacement for traditional food but as a better second choice. However, if I remember correctly some of the first publicity I saw about Soylent pitched it like it was somehow a replacement for food - and that's what I think this writer was reacting to. I agree with the author that I still would be reluctant to sacrifice the pleasures of eating even a non-nutritious meal for complete, ready-to-go nutrition (if that's even what Soylent is) more than a few times.
Soylent strikes me as a food not unlike MREs for the military or some of the dehydrated food that astronauts take up to space. That is, it could be the kind of nutrition that targets people in extreme circumstances, who might desperately need nutrition and energy but, because they're in the middle of a war zone, or in a space suit hovering above Earth, cannot get to it.
No I think you missed the point, or at least, the rest of the article where he goes on to state what you just offered up as a defense, and then disagree with it.
> It’s true that people sometimes eat meals that are mainly for sustenance (cheap frozen dinners, dried ramen, corn dogs) and other times we’re looking mostly for pleasure (72-hour short ribs). But I suspect that most of the time, for most meals, we want both sustenance and pleasure.
There you go. By the way, there are plenty of "third choices" as you state it, and have been for years. Soylent is nothing new, just YC startup noise.
Let's say we take every possible food (restaurant, home cooked, Soylent, etc.) and plot cost against benefit, where both of these data are an overall quantification of disutility and utility, so cost includes money and time spent, benefit includes health and pleasure, etc.
It's possible that, for some people, Soylent (and similar products) is the only place where benefit exceeds cost. Perhaps the only foods you enjoy are extremely unhealthy. Or perhaps you don't have the time or money to buy and prepare fresh food for yourself.
From the related video on that page: "if this was all we had to survive, then what would be the point of living"? That basically sums it up. I've ate field meals before in the Army and although they are okay too, I take the preparation of good food seriously. It's one of the relatively inexpensive luxuries of modern first world society. Taking the time to enjoy a meal gives my spirit a rise.
And honestly, when the world seems to be moving towards whole foods, organic meals, and avoiding processed foods, this seems to be going in the opposite direction. Not saying it has bad ingredients, but that the appearance of being processed will dissuade people.
I wrote this comment on an earlier soylent thread that got buried, but I think it could find a big market in people who care A LOT about eating specific nutrient proportions.
I'm working on the website Eat This Much (http://www.eatthismuch.com) and a huge portion of our audience are people that want to eat EXACTLY 40% of their calories from carbs, 30% from fat, and 30% from protein (that's part of the zone diet, as an example). Our meal plan generator allows you to request those proportions, but sometimes it can't meet the exact targets due to any number of other constraints, and it's a huge source of complaints from our users. It's a pretty complicated problem to solve while trying to give people a varied and interesting diet with real food, but Soylent makes it very simple. I use my own site as much as possible, and I'm excited to have it give me half of my calories from Soylent (probably my breakfast and lunch).
The main appeal of Soylent for me (I've been taking somewhere between 50%-75% of my calories from a DIY Soylent recipe for about three months now) is the ability to very precisely control how many calories I am consuming on a daily/weekly basis. I had been trying to lose weight for a while before switching to Soylent, but found it difficult to always know exactly how many calories were in something (especially when eating out or cooking something using a wide variety of ingredients). The frustrations stemming from this made progress difficult.
With Soylent, I know exactly how many calories I'm eating. I can increase or decrease very easily to make room for "cheat meals" on evenings and weekends which I enjoy much more frequently and with less guilt than I did when I was trying to control my calorie intake with regular food. My weight loss progress has resumed to exactly the rate it should based on the number of calories I'm eating, which is possibly further proof that my estimation skills on a non-Soylent diet were not very good.
Soylent is a preferable solution to this problem over something like Slim-fast or Ensure mainly due to cost, but also taste. The meal replacement shakes marketed for calorie-control/weight loss are generally very sugary or sweet tasting which is not something I could do for 2-3 meals a day for 5 days a week. Something more bland and flavorless like Soylent is much easier to handle as a staple meal long-term.
Here's what my on-the-street perspective is telling me: Over time the shelf space for ready-to-go protein shakes at the local convenience store chains(Walgreens, CVS, etc.) has gradually crept up. Some of these shakes still do the "joke's on you, this 'healthy' shake has as much sugar as Coca-Cola" thing. But there is a generation of them, led primarily by the Muscle Milk brand, which has stuck pretty strictly to pulling in good nutritional-facts numbers and working on taste second.
I'm a buyer of these shakes because for me, the consumption experience is mediated by before-and-after aspects as well as what the product tastes like. "Will I feel good an hour after I have this?" I tell myself. And while I have to pay a little more for the privilege of that, it's worth it for me.
Will it be a fad? I don't know. The trend has been upward so far and I think Soylent could easily ride it.
That's actually one of the fairer reviews I've seen. I think the author misses the appeal of Soylent for a lot of people, which is that for these people, food itself is primarily a hassle rather than a source of joy. These people would rather just scarf down a boring drink for a few seconds per day to keep themselves alive than deal with the problem of deciding on, buying, and preparing traditional food.
I think it speaks to some other problem if people think eating is a hassle. Eating is super important to live, determines a lot of your health and most people here have missed that it is also a very important social interaction. Maybe this is the HN bubble but eating is not just about sustenance. Could you get someone who is not a workaholic tech employee to eat this willingly? Somehow I doubt it.
I don't think he misses the appeal. In fact, he is quite clear in stating his understanding that one shouldn't necessarily consume Soylent for every single meal (or even more often than one would prefer). Unfortunately, he then immediately forgets that maxim and devotes the last 75% of the article to how unpleasant it would be to eat it for almost every meal. Asinine.
I personally just don't like this concept that food is a "nuisance". Or healthy food rather. Food and meals are the one thing that brings people together and offers up conversation, laughter, and emotion. Food is something that a lot of people enjoy and look forward too.
Are we really supposed to just take soylent as a healthy alternative for sustenance so we can continue to work? Just buy a juicer and keep it natural then. But really, take the break and eat a meal with a human being. You've got one life. Live it.
> Are we really supposed to just take soylent as a healthy alternative for sustenance so we can continue to work? Just buy a juicer and keep it natural then. But really, take the break and eat a meal with a human being. You've got one life. Live it.
I didn't see any stipulations on the soylent website requiring you to avoid socializing and stay chained to your desk while drinking it. Maybe I missed some small print?
Does that mean the evening meal I eat with my family every night isn't enough to make me human? There are literally 0 other people in the house when I grab breakfast on the way out the door to work. Health-wise, I'd rather get extra sleep than spend the time eating, so I take something I can eat in my car. Do I have to atone for not "taking a break" by sleeping 20 minutes less in the morning? Ridiculous.
Who says you can't take a break just because you don't have to eat? If an employer wants to take your breaks away by making you drink soylent instead, that's just an example of how terrible employers can be, not how awesome food is.
I enjoy eating food, but having the option to speed up my meal by a large factor and bond with friends over a different activity is pretty much entirely positive.
First of all, juiced fruits and vegetables don't provide most of the nutrients Soylent does.
Additionally, no one is saying that if I buy a bag of Soylent then I can never eat a pleasurable meal again. Why do people continue to use this "argument"? It doesn't logically follow from anything.
I don't know why there is so much hype about this product still. Maybe there's a niche market for people who are so busy they forget to eat (another problem in and of itself) but for everyone else it completely misses all that is good about eating: taste, social interaction, texture, experience, temperature, variety. Be right back, asking my girlfriend if she wants to sit and chug Soylent tonight instead of going out for Thai.
nobody says you can't go out for Thai. but if you find yourself regularly scarfing down a Subway sandwich for lunch and losing an hour of time in the process, Soylent might be a healthier, more efficient alternative.
If this is truly all the body needs, then how do they deal with uptake issues? There are several things that compete for uptake in the body in the same way that oxygen and carbon monoxide compete when binding to the hemoglobin in your blood.
E.g.:
- Omega-6 fatty acids will push out the much better Omega-3 fatty acids. IIRC, the recommended ratio is 2:1 (Omega-3 to Omega-6)[1].
- Absorption of iron is inhibited by calcium.
[1] FYI, most oils have a ton of Omega-6, and not much Omega-3. One exception here is coconut oil, which has little of either.
The price will almost surely go down as the company streamlines processing and improves its supply chain. Economies of scale and the likelihood of future competition will make it even cheaper.
I'd pay a bit more per serving if I could order just one bag to try it. Right now the smallest order on their website is $85. I'd never spend that on food that I may hate.
It sounds like the Soylent Revolution will be pleasurable.
If you have Soylent for one or two meals a day, then you'll really enjoy everything else. The mechanics of pleasure are well understood - you enjoy things more when you don't get them so often.
And it's cheap(ish), and apparently not too unhealthy.
I have nothing constructive to add. Just as a Chinese who frequently hosts dinner party for friends and coworkers, the idea of someone voluntarily using soylent as meal substitute is utter crazy and I feel personally insulted by the mere existence of such horrific product.
Still waiting for someone to invent Soylent Ramen...
I bought all the ingredients and made DIY soylent from one of the hacks someone posted... The taste was a serious problem. I wanted to drink it for a week, but there was a 0% chance of that happening the way it tasted.
Then I tried making Soylent Pasta, but boiled out all the nutrients and the water turned piss yellow (http://juliansarokin.com/soylent-for-science-pasta-bad-decis...)... But if there was a way to not mess that up, I think that could be really interesting.
Still waiting on my official Soylent, hopefully it tastes better than my catastrophe.
Wouldn't Soylent eventually add some flavouring to make it less utilitarian/boring? It's still the first version of the product and it seems that the author doesn't even consider the possibility that there would be variations of the powder for variety and different taste preferences in the future. Does anyone know if they ever stated anywhere that the taste won't change?
Does the author not understand that significant numbers of people already don't often get the opportunity to eat food that could be described as enjoyable? He seems to dismiss the idea without justification.
Given the choice between unhealthy almost-but-not-quite zero-variety food and healthy actually zero-variety food, the latter strikes me as the better option - and if you don't happen to live near a source of good food (no bakeries, butchers, delis, fresh fruit vendors, etc . . .), being low on time or money means making that choice (or not having one to make).
Speaking for myself, the cheap and ultra-quick food I usually ate during my years at school was just the same thing over and over - it didn't taste very good to begin with and certainly didn't improve with time. I couldn't fix something myself, or wait for someone else to fix something, or spend time socializing (that's what weekends were for!), or go somewhere else. I can say that I honestly would have preferred something like Soylent on grounds of both convenience and taste.
Soylent strikes me as too similar to multivitamins, which haven't fared well in many studies, even though they contain a bunch of the stuff your body needs.
There is a lot we don't understand about how food and human nutrition works, and I'd be nervous about relying on a heavily engineered food as more than an occasional addition to my diet.
Yes, 'There is a lot we don't understand about how food and human nutrition works' pretty much sums it up.
Worth noting that in some reports, multivitamin preparations have been associated with adverse health outcomes. Popping pills of whatever kind can be dicey.
Obesity and diabetes imply that a lot of Americans have an absolutely crap diet that probably isn't delivering much pleasure, either. If Soylent becomes a popular alternative for people who can't feed themselves properly, it could shave billions off health care costs.
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|12 years ago|reply
I'm a foodie. I delight in trying new dishes, restaurants and cuisines. I'm also a marked extrovert. I constantly seek out social settings and experiences. Combined with my ineptitude at cooking and address in Manhattan, we have why I eat one to three meals out a day. I manage the healthfulness of my diet with simple rules. Salads for lunch, finish all the greens on your plate before moving to other things, defaulting to seafood over red meat, etc.
But this comes at a cost, both in dollars and in time. Many times, a meal will go half eaten, because I have to rush out for a call. Other times, dinner gets pushed out so late that the only options aren't healthy. Yes, I could schedule meals into the day, but sometimes I prefer doing other things. And it's not just work! I feel starved during film festivals, too, between full schedules and my refusal to feed on solely popcorn and tapas for two weeks.
I don't think too many people will ever seriously replace a majority of their meals with something like Soylent. But even shifting my weekday lunches and late-night snacks from salads, paninis and starving to something cheap, healthy, and available would be welcome. A prerequisite to this would be Soylent not tasting like pancake batter. Utility doesn't have to be unpleasant. But there is a place for this amongst people who love food, love people, and aren't necessarily workaholics.
[+] [-] DanBC|12 years ago|reply
People mentioned all of the existing similar products.
Soylent supporters said that those products are only supplements, and you could if you wanted live on mothing but Soylent. (Those people are wrong about the other products - you can live on some of them).
Now some Soylent supporters are saying "of course you wouldn't live on it. It's just for supplemental use." In which case, what advantages does Soylent have over all the other products?
Other products come in a range of flavours; you can get unflavoured versions; you can get savoury versions; you can get formulations designed for naso-gastric feeding and, importantly, they've got many dietitians and registered nutritionists working with them. (I realise that Soylent have nutritionists now.)
There are plenty of products available to you today that you could use tha do mot taste like pancake batter. They're not particularly pleasant.
[+] [-] stuaxo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] niels_olson|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gfodor|12 years ago|reply
Pick three.
ABC = Homecooked meals, ACD = fast food, BCD = eating out, ABD = Soylent. Not complicated. Soylent provides a specific set of design tradeoffs that suit certain situations better than the alternatives.
[+] [-] neurobro|12 years ago|reply
If it tastes like gritty pancake batter, it can't be any worse than a diet of brussels sprouts, turnips, rutabagas, radicchio, eggplant, etc.
[+] [-] Xenmen|12 years ago|reply
Christ, it's as if he's willfully ignored everything; that's the POINT of Soylent, to give the option of a functional meal not for pleasure, so that you actually have a choice whether. Right now you don't, you have non-nutritious meals that don't take preparation time and are cheap, and nutritious meals that take vast amounts of time to prepare and/or are generally more expensive to acquire/prepare.
Now you have a third choice, complete nutrition at cost, minus the pleasure associated with the above two choices.
[+] [-] Aqueous|12 years ago|reply
Soylent strikes me as a food not unlike MREs for the military or some of the dehydrated food that astronauts take up to space. That is, it could be the kind of nutrition that targets people in extreme circumstances, who might desperately need nutrition and energy but, because they're in the middle of a war zone, or in a space suit hovering above Earth, cannot get to it.
[+] [-] rsl7|12 years ago|reply
> It’s true that people sometimes eat meals that are mainly for sustenance (cheap frozen dinners, dried ramen, corn dogs) and other times we’re looking mostly for pleasure (72-hour short ribs). But I suspect that most of the time, for most meals, we want both sustenance and pleasure.
There you go. By the way, there are plenty of "third choices" as you state it, and have been for years. Soylent is nothing new, just YC startup noise.
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] baddox|12 years ago|reply
It's possible that, for some people, Soylent (and similar products) is the only place where benefit exceeds cost. Perhaps the only foods you enjoy are extremely unhealthy. Or perhaps you don't have the time or money to buy and prepare fresh food for yourself.
[+] [-] ianstallings|12 years ago|reply
And honestly, when the world seems to be moving towards whole foods, organic meals, and avoiding processed foods, this seems to be going in the opposite direction. Not saying it has bad ingredients, but that the appearance of being processed will dissuade people.
[+] [-] papa_bear|12 years ago|reply
I'm working on the website Eat This Much (http://www.eatthismuch.com) and a huge portion of our audience are people that want to eat EXACTLY 40% of their calories from carbs, 30% from fat, and 30% from protein (that's part of the zone diet, as an example). Our meal plan generator allows you to request those proportions, but sometimes it can't meet the exact targets due to any number of other constraints, and it's a huge source of complaints from our users. It's a pretty complicated problem to solve while trying to give people a varied and interesting diet with real food, but Soylent makes it very simple. I use my own site as much as possible, and I'm excited to have it give me half of my calories from Soylent (probably my breakfast and lunch).
[+] [-] ultimatedelman|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Rudism|12 years ago|reply
With Soylent, I know exactly how many calories I'm eating. I can increase or decrease very easily to make room for "cheat meals" on evenings and weekends which I enjoy much more frequently and with less guilt than I did when I was trying to control my calorie intake with regular food. My weight loss progress has resumed to exactly the rate it should based on the number of calories I'm eating, which is possibly further proof that my estimation skills on a non-Soylent diet were not very good.
Soylent is a preferable solution to this problem over something like Slim-fast or Ensure mainly due to cost, but also taste. The meal replacement shakes marketed for calorie-control/weight loss are generally very sugary or sweet tasting which is not something I could do for 2-3 meals a day for 5 days a week. Something more bland and flavorless like Soylent is much easier to handle as a staple meal long-term.
[+] [-] chipsy|12 years ago|reply
I'm a buyer of these shakes because for me, the consumption experience is mediated by before-and-after aspects as well as what the product tastes like. "Will I feel good an hour after I have this?" I tell myself. And while I have to pay a little more for the privilege of that, it's worth it for me.
Will it be a fad? I don't know. The trend has been upward so far and I think Soylent could easily ride it.
[+] [-] baddox|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bignaj|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] psychometry|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bbwharris|12 years ago|reply
Are we really supposed to just take soylent as a healthy alternative for sustenance so we can continue to work? Just buy a juicer and keep it natural then. But really, take the break and eat a meal with a human being. You've got one life. Live it.
[+] [-] jimmar|12 years ago|reply
I didn't see any stipulations on the soylent website requiring you to avoid socializing and stay chained to your desk while drinking it. Maybe I missed some small print?
[+] [-] sp332|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] XorNot|12 years ago|reply
It's essentially pure sugar.
[+] [-] praxulus|12 years ago|reply
I enjoy eating food, but having the option to speed up my meal by a large factor and bond with friends over a different activity is pretty much entirely positive.
[+] [-] psychometry|12 years ago|reply
Additionally, no one is saying that if I buy a bag of Soylent then I can never eat a pleasurable meal again. Why do people continue to use this "argument"? It doesn't logically follow from anything.
[+] [-] bignaj|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bignaj|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gfodor|12 years ago|reply
nobody says you can't go out for Thai. but if you find yourself regularly scarfing down a Subway sandwich for lunch and losing an hour of time in the process, Soylent might be a healthier, more efficient alternative.
[+] [-] bbwharris|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyre|12 years ago|reply
E.g.:
- Omega-6 fatty acids will push out the much better Omega-3 fatty acids. IIRC, the recommended ratio is 2:1 (Omega-3 to Omega-6)[1].
- Absorption of iron is inhibited by calcium.
[1] FYI, most oils have a ton of Omega-6, and not much Omega-3. One exception here is coconut oil, which has little of either.
[+] [-] tragicAndCruel|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] baddox|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] psychometry|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drewrv|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gfodor|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peter-row|12 years ago|reply
If you have Soylent for one or two meals a day, then you'll really enjoy everything else. The mechanics of pleasure are well understood - you enjoy things more when you don't get them so often.
And it's cheap(ish), and apparently not too unhealthy.
[+] [-] AllenKids|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jsarokin|12 years ago|reply
I bought all the ingredients and made DIY soylent from one of the hacks someone posted... The taste was a serious problem. I wanted to drink it for a week, but there was a 0% chance of that happening the way it tasted.
Then I tried making Soylent Pasta, but boiled out all the nutrients and the water turned piss yellow (http://juliansarokin.com/soylent-for-science-pasta-bad-decis...)... But if there was a way to not mess that up, I think that could be really interesting.
Still waiting on my official Soylent, hopefully it tastes better than my catastrophe.
[+] [-] mpetrov|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yew|12 years ago|reply
Given the choice between unhealthy almost-but-not-quite zero-variety food and healthy actually zero-variety food, the latter strikes me as the better option - and if you don't happen to live near a source of good food (no bakeries, butchers, delis, fresh fruit vendors, etc . . .), being low on time or money means making that choice (or not having one to make).
Speaking for myself, the cheap and ultra-quick food I usually ate during my years at school was just the same thing over and over - it didn't taste very good to begin with and certainly didn't improve with time. I couldn't fix something myself, or wait for someone else to fix something, or spend time socializing (that's what weekends were for!), or go somewhere else. I can say that I honestly would have preferred something like Soylent on grounds of both convenience and taste.
[+] [-] webnrrd2k|12 years ago|reply
There is a lot we don't understand about how food and human nutrition works, and I'd be nervous about relying on a heavily engineered food as more than an occasional addition to my diet.
[+] [-] vixin|12 years ago|reply
Worth noting that in some reports, multivitamin preparations have been associated with adverse health outcomes. Popping pills of whatever kind can be dicey.
[+] [-] Zigurd|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanBC|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jnks|12 years ago|reply
[1] https://twitter.com/fmanjoo/status/471825996174217216