[autarch]

I agree. I think anyone who lives on an all (or nearly all) Soylent diet is very likely setting themselves up for some sort of long-term health problems.

That said, I can see a strong argument for replacing one meal a day with Soylent. It's unlikely to be worse than what most people eat, and as part of an overall varied diet I'd be much less concerned about the unknown missing ingredients.

[AJ007]

If someone only wants to eat Soylent they should. They should also be documenting as many health data points as possible, how much they are eating, and when they deviate from the diet. Twenty five to thirty years out we should have a good idea what the side effects are.

Negative side effects showing up within the next couple of years will kill Soylent. Why? Because their marketing says you don't need to eat anything else. That is a very steep claim, not much different than claiming your magical sugar pill prevents cancer.

If they made diminished claims I would speak less negatively. Certainly, as a nutritional supplement it would have strong and immediately measurable benefits in poor areas such as sub-Saharan Africa. Put a healthy 21 year old exclusively on it until they are 35? Ouch.

[Afforess]

> some sort of long-term health problems.

The leading cause of cancer is life. Everything causes long-term health problems, eventually. People are too risk-averse, How can you enjoy anything if you are perpetually concerned about long-term health risks?

[jacalata]

One end of the spectrum is being too careful, the other end is not taking any kind of precautions. Both are probably a bad way to live. (ie: if everything is equally dangerous, why not let children smoke a pack a day while working in a coal mine? They'll all die eventually anyway).