The number of scientifically rigorous and repeatable studies on human nutrition is shockingly small. The majority of the research that is done for the purposes

The number of scientifically rigorous and repeatable studies on human nutrition is shockingly small. The majority of the research that is done for the purposes of dietary recommendations involves survey or diary data. I am aware of one controlled diet study--I think it was from the 1960s--where the participants were fed a semi-liquid diet which contained all the chemical components of what was then suspected to be complete human nutrition. The results could not be used, because too many of the subjects quit, or ate foods smuggled in from outside. Knowing of that study, I have never feared that anyone would suffer some deficiency disease from eating nothing but Soylent. Because I think no one could accomplish such a feat for a long enough duration for any symptom to appear. I guarantee that unless the person is strapped down to a table for 23 hours a day and violently kept away from edible items for the 24th, they are, in fact, eating other things besides just Soylent from time to time. So when nutritionists recommend against eating Soylent as a replacement for food, I have to wonder why they even think that is even plausible enough to say anything about it. I understand completely why Cypher from The Matrix would sell out all of humanity for some virtual medium-rare tenderloin, instead of the nutrient slurry they have no choice about eating in the real world.