[aaron-lebo]

I wouldn't attribute it to some kind of nefarious gender issue.

It's as simple as marketing, which does matter. Slimfast in it's name implies a diet drink, not food replacement. Most people would never even consider them in the same arena and that's due to simple marketing by the very companies that produce them.

[Roboprog]

"Ensure" (I think) is the stuff in a can that they give old people to make them NOT lose too much weight. That sounds close to Soylent.

[0xcde4c3db]

The commercials very prominently suggested replacing breakfast and lunch with Slim-Fast shakes, so much so that "a shake for breakfast, one for lunch, and a sensible dinner" was basically their unofficial slogan. Obviously it was still marketed for weight loss, but the suggested use is strikingly similar to what a lot Soylent advocates suggest.

[mysterypie]

Yes, I can see that in the case of Soylent vs Slimfast, customer choice is driven by what marketing says is the intended use.

But don't be too quick to dismiss masculinity or coolness factors in product selection. Diet Coke and Coke Zero are essentially the same thing made by the same company (the latter having a slightly different "flavor profile"). Coke Zero exists because some men or many men will not order a Diet Coke: it's sissy or uncool. Coke Zero was introduced solely for that reason.

[vidarh]

Coke Zero exists because they decided to try to make a diet version of Coke that actually tastes closer to regular Coke. Diet Coke does not use the regular Coca Cola recipe with sugar replaced, but a tweaked one, on purpose.

Compare to e.g. Diet Pepsi, which is to Pepsi what Coke Zero is to Coke, Coca Cola was for decades worried about making something that was too close to the original (hence Tab being their first diet cola)

Or Diet RC Cola, which is the only diet cola product I've ever been close to confuse with the real thing (my parents insisted I "wouldn't notice the difference" with diet colas as a child in an attempt to get me to accept them, and utterly failed).

If you want a diet cola that tastes like a regular cola, Diet Coke will never be it, and it left Coca Cola with a gap in their lineup for people who weren't as concerned about picking a diet product, but would pick one if there's a diet cola available that is "close enough".

[DanBC]

Have you ever seen the ads for Diet Coke and Coca Cola Zero?

[GunlogAlm]

Coca Cola definitely tried to market Coke Zero to a male audience (it was described as 'Bloke Coke' in UK newspapers [1] around launch), but I think it's popular today not because of the marketing, but because it's a good product. To me, Diet Coke tastes artificial and... bland. Coke Zero tastes similar to regular Coca Cola, but has a distinct enough character to be appealing in its own right. In my experience, this is what most Coke Zero drinkers will say.

[1]: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/introducing-bloke-co...

[martin_bech]

I can taste the difference between Diet Coke, Coke Zero and the new Coke Zero - Zero Sugar. Diet Coke has the most artificial sweetener taste, while Coke Zero Zero sugar almost has none.

[pbhjpbhj]

Soylent in its name implies cannibalism ... so it's interesting that the name would sway people away from Slimfast.

How do they differ in ingredients?