[kunaalarya]

not sure where you got the slimfast nutritional info but they have 1g of sugar: http://slimfast.com/advanced-nutrition/#shakes

if it had that much sugar, it wouldve never gained a reputation for losing weight.

[Lazare]

That's a hilariously naive comment.

Historically, diet shakes/meal replacement shakes/etc have been almost entirely sugar, and slimfast is infamous for exactly that.

> if it had that much sugar, it wouldve never gained a reputation for losing weight.

That's not how advertising works. :)

(There is a new variant of slimfast with low sugar, but that's a very recent exception to the rule. Most slimfast is high sugar, and historically all slimfast was high sugar. It's like arguing "coke doesn't have lots of sugar", and linking the nutritional information to diet coke.)

[Obi_Juan_Kenobi]

> if it had that much sugar, it wouldve never gained a reputation for losing weight.

Ah, I see you've forgotten about the 'low-fat' era.

Efficacy has very little to do with the popularity of diets.

[maxerickson]

Original vs Advanced (click the buttons on their website to find Original).

The Original I checked had 18 grams of sugar.

[Chathamization]

And it looks like Advanced was introduced after Soylent.

[wattson12]

looks like the "original" versions have much more sugar: http://slimfast.com/original/#shakes