Talk:Soylent (meal replacement)

TechCrunch for medical facts

I flagged one of the citations that backs up a medical claim. It it using a tech blog as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.184.42 (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

Some non-logged in user nominated this article for deletion. I see no cause for deletion, the topic is plainly notable, and the citations are reasonable. Contrary to the procedure, I've removed the nomination to delete. stephan.com (talk)

A deletion debate is now in progress at WP:Articles for deletion/Soylent (food substitute). —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Now closed. English06 (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ingredients list

I understand the temptation to pick and choose interesting material from Rhinehart's blog to fill out the article or form conclusions in the encyclopedia's voice, but I'm afraid it's pure original research. There are plenty of good reliable secondary sources available. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure the ingredients list is original research? The article claims that Soylent is made from these ingredients. The authoritative source for that is Rhinehart's blog post. Rhinehart is doing original research, but we aren't. We're just reporting on his. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. According to policy a blog such as Rhinehart's isn't an authoritative source for anything except his own claims, and as a primary source, it shouldn't be used to make controversial claims in the encyclopedia's voice, such as what's in his formula or isn't in his formula. If the ingredients have been published in a reliable secondary source, that's OK, but I haven't seen one. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, if I understand you right, you're saying that Rhinehart's blog isn't a reliable source for the ingredients list, because it's controversial. Here's why I think otherwise. Soylent is whatever Rhinehart says it is. There's no controversy, because there's no mystery that can only be resolved by some independent party finding out what's really in Soylent. The ingredients list actually leaves some details purposely unspecified; the user has to fill those in. So, I think this is a case where a primary source is most appropriate. It's also a case where a self-published source is appropriate, because the ingredients list is Rhinehart's own definition of his own thing. What do you think? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think using primary sources is problematic, even with the best of intentions. WP:PSTS gives advice that they should be used "only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". Rhinehart's blog is full of wild claims and no so wild claims. Each editor has a different opinion about which claims are "uncontroversial". It might be one thing to have the article use attribution such as "According to Rhinehart..." etc. However you refuse to do that, and instead wish to have material gleaned from Rhinehart's blog written as fact in the encyclopedia's voice. So, I'm not sure I can agree with what you've done or how you're interpreting policy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you point out a specific problem with using Rhinehart's list of the ingredients as the source for the list of the ingredients? Have you found a specific controversy about it? From what I understand so far, this sounds like a classic case where a primary, self-published source is best (see WP:SELFSOURCE). Or are you just saying that you think in-text attribution would be better here than plain text with an in-line citation? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't need a specific controversy or problem. It's about what the SELFPUB source can and can't be used for, see WP:BLOGS and WP:SELFPUB. Since Rhinehart's blog is a vehicle to sell Soylent, pretty much anything he writes in it is self-serving, including a list of ingredients. A list which has not been verified by anyone - except Rhinehart. His blog *might* be used per SELPUB if Rhinehart's comments are clearly attributed as his own views, for example, e.g. Rhinehart claims Soylent is beneficial, Rhinehart writes that Soylent contains 39 ingredients, Rhinehart says he changed the formula of Soylent, etc. however we have plenty of reliable secondary sources that can do that for us. So the question remains, why use his blog at all? - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused because I don't see a connection with the point that Rhinehart's blog is the authoritative source on Soylent's ingredients. It sounds to me like we might be misunderstanding each other. I'm going to think about what you've said and come back in a couple hours and see if I can sort this out. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I can make it clearer for you: Rhinehart's blog is not considered an "authoritative" source. It is a source, to be used carefully per WP:SELFPUB, for his own views, if that. We should not be using someone's blog as a source for statements of fact made in Wikipedia's voice. I think this issue will likely become clarified once the article gets out of AfD and more editors become involved. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, this might be it: Are you thinking that Soylent is primarily a product that people have been buying from Rhinehart, so that only an independent source could verify Rhinehart's claims about what's in it, sort of like Kentucky Fried Chicken's (disputed) claim of "eleven herbs and spices"? Actually, the ingredients list is a specification, not an empirical claim. It suggests quantities of nutrients and possible forms in which to take them; it actually doesn't specify precisely what the ingredients have to be. For example, Rhinehart specifies 200 g of carbohydrates in one form or another, with the suggestion that they be some kind of oligosaccharide. Rhinehart started with maltodextrin and later switched to oat powder; both of those are compatible with the specification. Most Soylent is made by do-it-yourselfers who flesh out the ingredients list into an actual recipe and customize it to themselves. This discussion board is where people talk about it. Well, even if specification-vs.-empirical-claim isn't the misunderstanding, the idea that Soylent is something you're supposed to customize needs to be clarified in the article. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I see your point that there's really only one source for the information on what's in the product, but since we have no way to verify the accuracy or authenticity of the information in an independent source, I have to agree with LuckyLouie's idea that any claims based on the Rhinehart source need to be qualified as LuckyLouie suggests: with signal phrases such as "According to Rhinehart, ...". Memetics (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

One other thing: We do make the empirical claim that the specification shown on the article page is what Rhinehart arrived at after 30 days. WP:SELFSOURCE says "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field." —Ben Kovitz (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing

I added POV-check banner yesterday. My main concern is POV pushing. Some basic examples are "Soylent almost certainly lacks some nutrients critical for life", as opposed to something like "Soylent is believed to lack nutrients critical for life", and hand waving about "kidney damage". I am, however, not experienced with Wikipedia guidelines, so I would appreciate if someone more knowledgable would pitch in pitr (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is the "Criticism" section called "Dangers"? This seems completely unspecific and alarmist. When talking about politicians' policies they call it "Criticism" not "Dangers" [of adopting that certain policy].

Because in this case there are possibly (and likely, as per the reasons given in the article) DANGERS associated with this diet. Too migrate to a diet composed entirely of synthetically created nutrient drinks that has never been tested in any sort of academic setting is incredibly risky. There are hundreds of nutrients that are known to be required by the human body for optimal functioning, and perhaps many more that we are unaware of. Furthermore, there is a very specific balance required between the many nutrients, where too little or too much of one can disrupt the absorption of another. Well known examples of this are electrolytes. To properly rehydrate, you need to get a balanced amount of primarily potassium, magnesium, calcium, and sodium. Just taking sodium or potassium can worsen dehydration. That's probably been covered by the makers of the recipe, as it's very well known in sports nutrition circles. What's less well known are things like proper balancing of amino acid intake. Tryptophan, Tyrosine and several other amino acids compete for metabolism, using the same enzymes. Thus too much of one can block the absorption of others. There's actually no way to perfectly correct for this; ordinarily you just get more Tryptophan in one meal, and perhaps more Tyrosine in another. But the main problem is that the various soylent recipes have never undergone any sort of scientific analysis let alone controlled animal trials. There is no way of knowing whether they're safe long-term, and due to the complexity of the nutrition, it's quite likely they are missing several key micronutrients. The consequences of this possibly being flawed are enormous, a person could gradually deplete their body's stores of various nutrients, and then begin manifesting severe conditions a year or two down the line, such as neuropathy. Or insidious disorders that may not immediately be connected to nutritional deficiency could manifest, such as depression. In short, there are very real dangers to using this. It's incredibly risky and the stakes are high. LiamSP (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

While I agree that it is possible Soylent may be missing critical ingreeidents, it is not Wikipedia's place to make such a judgement, for example the phrase "Soylent almost certainly lacks some nutrients critical for life and/or it may provide nutrients in inappropriate proportions, causing serious medical problems, particularly if used long-term." Should be replaced with something more along the lines of "Soylent has been criticized for lacking some nutrients critical for life and/or it may provide nutrients in inappropriate proportions, which could serious medical problems, particularly if used long-term." This removes the POV bias, however deserved it may be.

After another read through of the section, I have no problems with the section being named "Dangers." The second paragraph clearly shows that the risks involved with missing out in specific nutrients. That being said, I believe that the first paragraph reads as though the author is attempting to convince someone not to consume Soylent. As I stated above, that is not Wikipedia's place. I think the 1st paragraph needs a significant rewrite to remove the bias. 67.50.30.250 (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, it is not our place make such a judgement. That's why we go by what reliable sources say. The statement you quote is sourced. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much every source discusses the dangers. We reflect that coverage in the sources by covering the same information in roughly the same proportion in the Wikipedia article. "Has been criticized" is misleading and weaselly. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

There is no controversy that Soylent is almost certainly missing some essential nutrients and/or has things out of proportion. Rhinehart said: "I am reticent to provide exact brand names and instructions because I am not fully convinced of the diet's safety for a physiology different than mine."[1] The initial, minimal testing after success with a few men turned up problems with women: "The women are not as happy, reporting they still feel hungry. Clearly this still needs some tweaking."[2] They're raising money so they can do the research needed to find the problems with Soylent and fix them. "There are plans afoot for male- and female-specific formulae, as well as a vegan version. 'If we raise a lot, we could put money into formal testing and research,' says Mr Rhinehart."[3] "Stadler warns that although we know many of the essential nutrients in food, we don’t know everything and there’s a strong possibility that an elemental diet like this could miss something critically important."[4] "'I am no biologist though,' [Rhinehart] admits, 'and can’t isolate the placebo effect in a sample size of one.' He does accept, however, that Dr Jordan-Mahy’s concern about the complexities of nutritional absorption is sound. 'It’s one of the main reasons I get blood work so frequently.'"[5]

The section covers the facts about the dangers thoroughly and systematically: what they are, how severe they are, the level of certainty about them, the testing done so far to detect these dangers, and the actual problems that have occurred so far. A clear, forthright heading for that information is "Dangers".

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

How to summarize the dangers in the lead?

A few weeks ago, we had this sentence in the lead:

As of May 2013, Soylent has not been scientifically tested and is potentially dangerous.

User:71.228.201.169 removed it with no explanation. I'm not sure what the problem is. Here is what the source says: "WARNING: This diet is untested and potentially dangerous. It hasn't been studied and Rhinehart is doing his own self-testing without a doctor's help."

Considering how much the sources talk about the dangers of Soylent, and that we have an entire section about the dangers, we're violating both WP:NPOV and MOS:INTRO if the lead doesn't mention something about the lack of testing and why this is important. These facts also explain the need to get funding to do research, covered in the last sentence of the paragraph. We shouldn't be as heavy-handed as this (rather mediocre) source, but the lead needs to say something.

If the above sentence is objectionable, would someone please suggest better wording? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Do these facts have reliable sources?

I just did some clean-ups and found some unsourced facts. Does anyone have sources for these?

• "[medical foods] are not required to undergo premarket review or approval by FDA." "Additionally, medical foods are exempted from the labeling requirements for health claims and nutrient content claims under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990."

I deleted this because it seemed like argument rather than summary of sources. The source cited actually says, after explaining that medical foods are tricky to make because of problems with bioavailability, "That’s why it’s important to use products from real companies that have to obey FDA labeling regulations. There are real downsides to trying this stuff at home." Obviously, if there is a reliable, Soylent-specific source for the stuff I deleted, then let's add it back.

• "The act of chewing food releases hormones that affect appetite and the biological consequences of a liquid-only diet are not fully understood."

Is the second fact in a reliable source that's specifically about Soylent? (I may have missed it when I read the sources.) The point about chewing food seems borderline salient at best, even though it's sourced, so I just deleted the whole sentence.

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources about DIY and customization?

Has anyone come across any solid sources for the fact that Soylent is mainly a do-it-yourselfer phenomenon, and pretty much everyone who makes the stuff makes their own modifications to Rhinehart's basic recipe? I know this from all the activity on http://discourse.soylent.me/, but that's not a reliable secondary source. Currently, the article gives the false impression that Soylent is mainly a commercial product. It might become that in the future, but now it's mostly DIYers. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

What the average American spends on food

The article states that Soylent costs one fourth what the average American spends on food. As a source, it cites a Real Clear Science article. That article in turn cites a Gallup Poll as to what the average American spends on food. However, the the Real Clear Science author seems to have misinterpreted the poll, which asked about family spending, not individual spending. Wsqdx (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

"The development of Soylent has demonstrated a lack of understanding of the current state of the science."

Couldn't find anything in the source to support this. 121.99.41.64 (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed it. If anyone can source it, please do so. TippyGoomba (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"Ingredients"

Currently, the "ingredients" section lists nutrients rather than ingredients. "Sodium" is not an ingredient, "table salt" is. "Fat" is not an ingredient, "olive oil" is. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was made from people? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 14:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I recognize that, as a Soylent employee, there is a conflict of interest in my editing this page, but we would like to note that the current formula does include Soy Lecithin. We have documented this on our blog, and hope that this helps explain the current formulation in detail. Thank you. SoylentJohn (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn't water an ingredient since it is a liquid? A solid form would be better since many millions of people world wide have no access to clean water. 192.122.237.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Cost

"Rhinehart claims to spend US$154.62 per month on Soylent.... Rhinehart has stated he would like to get Soylent down to a cost of US$5 per day." Mission accomplished. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Outdated ingredients

I removed the "outdated" template as a new, complete list of ingredients and nurtient content have yet to be released. Per their main page (bottom of page):

We are almost done finalizing the Soylent formula that we will be shipping in January/February. Once that is complete, we will release a complete nutrient breakdown and ingredient list on blog.soylent.me

They have released some information such as micronutrient breakdown and other ingredients, but it is not clear if this is a complete list or not. Moreover, I cannot find any analysis of carbohydrates, fats, proteins, etc. that are often on the nutrition label.

The intro sentence to the section is clear that the listed ingredients are from the original formulation, so I see no problem with keeping the info as it is until a new, complete list is made public. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

They have released their final ingredients list: https://www.dropbox.com/s/l90jvmlgl14rj10/SoylentFinalNutrition.pdf. This page should definitely be updated to reflect this information. Adrianscholl (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Also found on their blog at http://blog.soylent.me/post/74770956256/soylent-1-0-final-nutrition EvergreenFir (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Cost comparisons vs alt nutrition sources

In the cost block, there's a sequence of numbers put up to compare Soylent vs some alternatives (Jevity and a family of four's thrifty spend) which I edited to divide the cost figure for the family of four, to bring it in line with the other comparisons. The edit has been reverted, so it's closer to source, but as it stands I think it's an ambiguous/leading comparison since the headline number for a family of four is well, multiplied by four making it look like Soylent is a quarter of the two alternatives provided so I've tried to break out the comparator a bit more clearly. Tanant (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Needs Rewriting to Improve Style

This article has slid back towards an unbalanced almost press-release styled form of writing that needs to be neatened. The writing constantly goes into flattering detail about the creator's design process rather than address the substance itself. 121.99.60.155 (talk) 13:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)