Talk:Soylent

Note
From this article, "It is not people". Well, of course it isn't NOW. But, give it a couple decades... ;) Chair tater (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not just this article; it seems everyone writing about the stuff is compelled to make that joke, even Rosa themselves. &lt;3 CSapphire bullets of pure love 19:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia
This should be scoured for refs. The FDA thing: the FDA hasn't uttered a squeak. What they did was get a lab to tell them it met FDA requirements - David Gerard (talk) 08:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There really was nothing to substantiate that they made any claims beyond the nutrition label. The rubbish from Wikipedia has now been deleted. Unless Soylent does an actually quality scientific study they can't make any health claims without getting burned by FDA. Bongolian (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That "rubbish" was the quote backing the claim in the article body, and that's why I left it in: that the company keeps making claims implying the FDA gives a shit, but that quote reveals what actually happened - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's true that Rhinehart was quoted as saying that in the article, but if they actually put anything like that on their label or website at this point, the FDA would likely come after them. Rhinehart's either sly, sloppy or misquoted; probably the first I would guess. Some other clown tried claiming it and failed for soy protein. Bongolian (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This guy
The creator of Soylent describes his lifestyle - David Gerard (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason it's called Soylent
It seems to be a tongue-in-cheek attempt to scare away the Whole Foods/anti-GMO/natural = divinity crowds that would otherwise nitpick the ingredients to death. They do claim to be vegan, but not glutten-free, gmo-free.

Bad Page
The Soylent article is terrible and antithetical to the purpose of rationalwiki. There is nothing rational about the article: no evidence, no reasoning, no compelling argument. Ironically, the current article is best thought of as an example of the Appeal to Nature fallacy.
 * I think it's pretty good as it stands, actually. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This article was obviously written by the kind of people who try to stop the plankton ships and want to destroy everything we have. 90.219.119.106 (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Soylent v evolution
We (and our jaws, muscles, and digestive systems etc) have evolved over the 600 million years of multicellular life to consume a wide range of foodstuffs (and to extract various materials therefrom including iron, roughage etc etc). Can we actually live on Soylent-as-a-substance alone? Anna Livia (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In principle, yes if the formulation is right — except for the lack of chewing issue. People need to chew to retain their teeth and for gum health, as noted on the main page. As an example, rodents have been kept alive throughout their normal lifespan on special liquid diets, e.g. see: . Bongolian (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To what extent do most people having the option prefer a range of textures - or even require it for physiological/psychological reasons? Have the rats been given the option of selecting between 'conventional foods' and the liquid diet? Anna Livia (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The all-liquid diet was developed for rats so that testing of chemicals (that were not amenable to mixing into rat chow) could be facilitated. Yes, it should be obvious that people like textural variation in their food. That's probably partly why a Solyent-only diet is revolting. Bongolian (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)