Soylent as a simple meal replacement makes quite a bit of sense. It's the same as Weight Watcher shakes and the like-something you can eat to replace a meal once a day at most. That product can get away with not being perfectly nutritionally balanced because it's not meant to be eaten every meal. You can use the other meals to fill the nutritional holes left by it, even if you're using it to replace one meal a day.
Soylent as a total food replacement brings a LOT more scrutiny. It means that they have to prove that it IS perfectly nutritionally balanced, and that there aren't any adverse side effects for long-term consumption. That's where the snake oil responses come in, because the burden of proof is so much higher.
The post I responded to treated a business with a real product as fashion. They liked Soylent because it was "garage" and then didn't when it became popular... it's the cliched hipster who only likes bands you've never heard of. I am probably frustrated with the the consumer vs critic chasm. I will probably purchase Soylent when it's available, at least to try it out. It will probably never replace all of my meals (I don't think they really suggest that it SHOULD, although they may suggest that it COULD) but I'd try. The post I responded to was purely critical and only focused on the presentation of the product not the use of the product.
Soylent as a simple meal replacement makes quite a bit of sense. It's the same as Weight Watcher shakes and the like-something you can eat to replace a meal once a day at most. That product can get away with not being perfectly nutritionally balanced because it's not meant to be eaten every meal. You can use the other meals to fill the nutritional holes left by it, even if you're using it to replace one meal a day.
Soylent as a total food replacement brings a LOT more scrutiny. It means that they have to prove that it IS perfectly nutritionally balanced, and that there aren't any adverse side effects for long-term consumption. That's where the snake oil responses come in, because the burden of proof is so much higher.