6 ms·

I really don't understand this Soylent nonsense: 1. I like food. The smell, experience and taste. Why in god's name would I eat powder to save myself the "hass

I really don't understand this Soylent nonsense: 1. I like food. The smell, experience and taste. Why in god's name would I eat powder to save myself the "hassle" of eating food? That's like promoting adoption as a method of avoiding the "hassle" of having sex. 2. Why the hell would you associate the brand of a product that you believe is healthy with a movie that is about feeding dead people back to us? That's the first thing I think about when I hear the word Soylent - that "Soylent Green is people!" Yum! Let me rush right out and get me some of that. To me personally, Soylent is the very antithesis of the idea of living this short life I have. With like 40% of people too damn fat for their own good, I don't get how anyone sees a positive outcome for them.

camdykeman 13y ago
Its not about whether you "like food" or not. • Not everyone has access to proper ingredients/tools/knowledge that are required for maintaining a proper diet. • The vast majority of food is perishable and does not transport/keep/distribute well. • Lots of people like food too much and overindulge. Your analogy of sex would be more appropriate if you made it analogous to sleep. Many people out there love to sleep. But I don't think anyone would argue that sleeping is a "good" or "efficient" use of time, nor do I think anyone would be opposed to providing more or better sleep to those who currently struggle with it. Soylet is flawed, but subjectively arguing that Soylent is stupid because you like to stuff your face makes you as ignorant as those "40% of people too damn fat for their own good" that you so readily attack, it just means you have a better control mechanism. Stop trolling.
- run4yourlives 13y ago
  Stop Trolling? Not everyone has access to proper ingredients/tools/knowledge that are required for maintaining a proper diet. Actually, everyone does have this. Whether they choose to use it is another story. I've yet to meet a person on this planet though that doesn't know that you can't survive on chocolate and potato chips. The stomach cramps are a pretty good clue. The vast majority of food is perishable and does not transport/keep/distribute well Thankfully, over the last 20,000 years we've learned to live of the things around us, like animals and plants. I don't understand this argument. There is no requirement for food to be distributed over vast distances and times. The fact that we choose to do this is a societal choice. Lots of people like food too much and overindulge. So? The already have things like Slimfast for these people. But I don't think anyone would argue that sleeping is a "good" or "efficient" use of time Life is about living, not being efficient. However you choose to spend your time is the best use of your time. There is no race to win. nor do I think anyone would be opposed to providing more or better sleep to those who currently struggle with it. Are you honestly suggesting that Soylent is better for someone than a proper meal? You better have a pretty long list of peer reviewed research to back that statement up if you are. subjectively arguing that Soylent is stupid because you like to stuff your face Enjoying food is not "stuffing your face". Perhaps if this is what your relationship with food is I can see the appeal. That's abnormal though.
  - trcollinson 13y ago
    Wow, I'm sorry but do you really believe this statement: "Actually, everyone does have this. Whether they choose to use it is another story. I've yet to meet a person on this planet though that doesn't know that you can't survive on chocolate and potato chips. The stomach cramps are a pretty good clue." Are you trying to say you have not met any person, ever, who does not have the money or ability to find good, wholesome foods? There is an entire world outside of the US, with a number of countries having significant economic and food shortages. There are a number of people who live on fair less than "chocolate and potato chips". I have no idea whether this recipe is a good idea or not. I believe it should be tested and peer reviewed by professionals. However, creating a less expensive, highly nutritious, complete food product that is shelf stable and easily transported would save 10's, maybe 100's, of millions of lives. You sound very short sided here.
    - Alex3917 13y ago
      > There is an entire world outside of the US, with a number of countries having significant economic and food shortages. Often due to policies of the US or other imperialist nations.
    - run4yourlives 13y ago
      However, creating a less expensive, highly nutritious, complete food product that is shelf stable and easily transported would save 10's, maybe 100's, of millions of lives. No, it would not. All you have done here is display your ignorance of why people around the world are starving. First, let me separate two distinct categories of person that you use in your comment. On one hand we have the average western lower income person. On the other, we have a "truly poor" third world person that is either on the brink of starvation or whom a proper diet is not guaranteed. I'll tackle the latter first. To suggest that there is less food produced than is needed to eat globally is simply false. Food production has outpaced population growth. We have more food now (per person) that we have ever had in our history. So, introducing a new food to market is solving a problem that does not exist. Food security is a political problem, not a scientific one. As to the former, I'd venture that there there aren't any western adults that don't at least understand that daily McDonald's along with a sedentary lifestyle is not a healthy option. The issue here isn't access, it's personal choice. Buying fast, crappy food is not cheaper than buying wholesome raw ingredients and then taking the time to prepare them. This issue isn't addressed by introducing a powder to encourage the same behaviours that fast food supports. Personal change is just that - change. Nobody is saving the world here. What Soylent is really is nothing more than extended mental masturbation, of little utility to the masses. Don't convince yourself otherwise.
- DiegoNolan 13y ago
  I could and would argue that sleeping is a good use of time.
  - camdykeman 13y ago
    So if starting tomorrow, you knew that your body only required you to sleep for one hour a night to maintain and repair itself instead of 7-8 you would continue sleeping 7-8 simply because you think its a good use of time? I doubt it. You might still lay around in bed on your days off, or you might stay in bed to procrastinate when faced with something to do that day, but arguing that it would still be a good use of time is extremely flawed.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      Most people genuinely would like to stay in bed for 8 hours a night, even if a safe, effective, NO_SLEEP_PILL was released that allowed your body to safely get by on just an hours sleep per night. Sometimes people would chose to sleep less - crunching work, or partying, or whatever. But mostly I really think people like that time.
      - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
        I get on average about 5 hours of sleep per night. I would very much like a NO_SLEEP_PILL that made that (or even less) sleep enough for my body. I would not wish to be laying in bed for 8 hours a night if not required to function. I would be using that time to do other things. I also believe my wife is in the same mind set. I know that I'm speaking of a sample of just 1 (or 2 if you count my wife) so that isn't enough to go against your "most people" idea.
DanBC 13y ago
Personally, I think Soylent is stupid. Having said that: > With like 40% of people too damn fat for their own good, I don't get how anyone sees a positive outcome for them. So, Fat_Bob is at work. He's made the effort and had a good healthy breakfast. He knows when he goes home that him and his significant other are going to make the effort and eat a healthy dinner. But it's midday, and outside the office is a FatBurger, and opposite them is a GreasyJoes, and they both have special offers if you buy a 64ounce soda. So, Fat_Bob just slurps down a liquid nutrition drink. He knows he's got some kind of useful nutrition from it, and maybe it's enough to ease the cravings while he walks past FatBurger and GreasyJoes to get to the Carrot_Stick_Stall. At least, I think that's what they're aiming for.
- zachalexander 13y ago
  Exactly. "Soylent : food :: water : drinks" is the idea. Water isn't my favorite beverage, but I'm really glad I can just turn on the tap and quench my thirst, without having to buy a latte. What I don't understand is why you would call soylent "stupid" right before explaining its utility.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Some people have the personal opinion that they just can't be bothered to learn to cook and to eat nice food. I'm trying to get my head around that. It's an alien concept to me. Then there's the liquid feed nature of it. Put it in a cake and I might not be so critical of it. I am trying to make myself remember that I have strong personal opinions and that I need to wait for science before leaping to the "it's stupid" conclusion. This submission was nice because it was reasonably cautious - it has some safety advice, and warns people about the experimental nature of it. So, what people do with their bodies is mostly up to them and I don't try to stop them.
    - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
      On the flip side: Some people have the personal opinion that they eat gourmet meals, surrounded by loving friends, 3 times a day, 7 days a week. They appear to get heaps and heaps of personal pleasure out of every single meal they eat. They apparently never eat for the simple fact that they are hungry and need to eat. I'm trying to get my head around that.
satellitecat 13y ago
I don't really understand the whole objection to Soylent. 1. I don't care much about food. The smell, experience and taste. Why in god's name would I spend a bunch of time each day just to have the "joy" of eating food? I could be doing other things, like having sex (Seriously. "Too hungry for sex, let's make [time appropriate meal name]" happens a few times a month!) 2. The name is humourous, and was a good way to get attention. Could do with a re-brand, but I figure we nerdy types who would be interested in this would enjoy the somewhat sick humour of the name. To me personally, eating, and the things involved in it (grocery shopping, preparation, making and packing lunch or going out, deciding what to make, poopin', flossing, etc) are the very antithesis of the idea of living this short life I have. I just have better things to do than chew and taste stuff. If I feel like experiencing some nice food, then I can go out of my way to get it. In fact, I'd probably be more inclined to make a couple good meals per week, and would enjoy going out or ordering in more, if I wasn't having to deal with food every day. There's always someone in these Soylent threads who says, "Just learn to cook, it doesn't have to be time consuming or expensive, and you'll enjoy it!" but I just. don't. care. about food.
jack-r-abbit 13y ago
> That's like promoting adoption as a method of avoiding the "hassle" of having sex. Allow me to over share a little bit for a moment. My wife and I had trouble conceiving. So the "process" very much became a task. It was scheduled. It was monitored (not the "act" itself, pervs... LOL). It involved various shots on schedule with other things. I won't go so far to call it a "hassle" but I will tell you that even something as enjoyable as sex can be reduced to a chore if you make it one.
- run4yourlives 13y ago
  I appreciate what you are saying, but my point was more that having sex is a lot more than making a baby, in the same way that eating is a lot more than refueling your body.
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    Yes. And my point was that even really, really fun stuff can be less fun when you HAVE to do it, repeatedly, on schedule, etc.
    - run4yourlives 13y ago
      I think a vast majority of people in this world would never feel eating to be such a tedious task.
      - Blahah 13y ago
        But preparing food is.
      - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
        You are looking at things in single data points. Shopping for food is not always tedious. Cooking is not always tedious. Eating is not always tedious. Cleaning up after is not always tedious. But cooking/eating healthy actually does take a non-trivial amount of time and effort. This is one reason why fast food is so popular. Convenience. Do you think most people eat at McD's because they view that as a great meal? I don't. It is about convenience. No matter how you look at it... preparing food does take time. Maybe it doesn't need to take hours every meal, but it still takes time. Shopping, prep, cleanup... it all takes some time. So what is so wrong with trading a fast McD's burger for a fast nutrient shake? Or having a fast nutrient shake every morning instead of a bowl of cereal? People talk as if they eat some gourmet meal surrounded by friends, 3 times a day, everyday and would miss that immensely if they drank nutrient shakes. Today I had cereal for breakfast and a Subway sandwich for lunch. Both cases I ate alone. I ate those things because I needed to eat, they were near me and I viewed them as the healthier choice given the options I had in front of me. Both of those meals could easily have been replaced with a filling shake and I would not have reduced my daily food pleasure. Tonight... tonight I will eat a nice meal. And enjoy it.
zachalexander 13y ago
OP here. > I like food. The smell, experience and taste. So do I. I cooked food for a living for two years, and am planning a dinner party this weekend. > Why in god's name would I eat powder to save myself the "hassle" of eating food? That's like promoting adoption as a method of avoiding the "hassle" of having sex. That is a poor analogy. A better one is this: Imagine you were forced by biology to have sex three times a day. Personally I'm a fan of sex, but anything would get old if you were forced to do it 3x/day, every day. ("Really? Now? I have to go to work, I don't have time for this.") I love food, and soylent lets me enjoy food on my own terms.
mdip 13y ago
As others have pointed out, I think you've misunderstood the concept. This wouldn't be the first time an idea came to light that a lot of people didn't get (Twitter, anyone? ... crickets ... maybe not here). 1. I like food. Eating, on the whole, isn't a hassle. Actually, it's quite easy. I have candy bars stashed in my desk, and soda in my fridge. Unfortunately, I don't always know how my day is going to roll, so that candy bar and soda might end up being lunch. Last year I made up my own meal replacement (only for lunch) to combat this problem and stuck with it for a few months. If someone could produce a meal replacement that made me feel full, kept me off of a sugar crash, that I could consume quickly when I'm too busy to think about eating healthy and was moderately healthy. There's no way, with my lifestyle (and desire) that I'm going to stick with a strict Whole Food healthy diet, and almost anything moderately healthy is going to be an improvement over mine (and many others') diets. The sex analogy doesn't work very well because a lot of people go a long time without sex due to schedules. You can survive without sex for longer than you can without food (not to mention there's fewer "bad ways to have sex" by comparison). 2. I thought the name was funny. I'm not a marketing guy, so I couldn't tell you if the selection of that name would speak negatively to the rest of the world, but I'd admit that name was the reason I read the initial article about the product. ...Soylent is the very antithesis of the idea of living this short life I have. With like 40% of people too damn fat for their own good... I think you've just pointed out why 40% of people might actually be too damn fat for their own good. Eating junk food is enjoyable and having to maintain a healthy diet is the very antithesis of the idea of living this short life to many people. For those people, Soylent isn't really relevant.

camdykeman 13y ago

Its not about whether you "like food" or not. • Not everyone has access to proper ingredients/tools/knowledge that are required for maintaining a proper diet. • The vast majority of food is perishable and does not transport/keep/distribute well. • Lots of people like food too much and overindulge. Your analogy of sex would be more appropriate if you made it analogous to sleep. Many people out there love to sleep. But I don't think anyone would argue that sleeping is a "good" or "efficient" use of time, nor do I think anyone would be opposed to providing more or better sleep to those who currently struggle with it. Soylet is flawed, but subjectively arguing that Soylent is stupid because you like to stuff your face makes you as ignorant as those "40% of people too damn fat for their own good" that you so readily attack, it just means you have a better control mechanism. Stop trolling.

run4yourlives 13y ago
Stop Trolling? Not everyone has access to proper ingredients/tools/knowledge that are required for maintaining a proper diet. Actually, everyone does have this. Whether they choose to use it is another story. I've yet to meet a person on this planet though that doesn't know that you can't survive on chocolate and potato chips. The stomach cramps are a pretty good clue. The vast majority of food is perishable and does not transport/keep/distribute well Thankfully, over the last 20,000 years we've learned to live of the things around us, like animals and plants. I don't understand this argument. There is no requirement for food to be distributed over vast distances and times. The fact that we choose to do this is a societal choice. Lots of people like food too much and overindulge. So? The already have things like Slimfast for these people. But I don't think anyone would argue that sleeping is a "good" or "efficient" use of time Life is about living, not being efficient. However you choose to spend your time is the best use of your time. There is no race to win. nor do I think anyone would be opposed to providing more or better sleep to those who currently struggle with it. Are you honestly suggesting that Soylent is better for someone than a proper meal? You better have a pretty long list of peer reviewed research to back that statement up if you are. subjectively arguing that Soylent is stupid because you like to stuff your face Enjoying food is not "stuffing your face". Perhaps if this is what your relationship with food is I can see the appeal. That's abnormal though.
- trcollinson 13y ago
  Wow, I'm sorry but do you really believe this statement: "Actually, everyone does have this. Whether they choose to use it is another story. I've yet to meet a person on this planet though that doesn't know that you can't survive on chocolate and potato chips. The stomach cramps are a pretty good clue." Are you trying to say you have not met any person, ever, who does not have the money or ability to find good, wholesome foods? There is an entire world outside of the US, with a number of countries having significant economic and food shortages. There are a number of people who live on fair less than "chocolate and potato chips". I have no idea whether this recipe is a good idea or not. I believe it should be tested and peer reviewed by professionals. However, creating a less expensive, highly nutritious, complete food product that is shelf stable and easily transported would save 10's, maybe 100's, of millions of lives. You sound very short sided here.
  - Alex3917 13y ago
    > There is an entire world outside of the US, with a number of countries having significant economic and food shortages. Often due to policies of the US or other imperialist nations.
  - run4yourlives 13y ago
    However, creating a less expensive, highly nutritious, complete food product that is shelf stable and easily transported would save 10's, maybe 100's, of millions of lives. No, it would not. All you have done here is display your ignorance of why people around the world are starving. First, let me separate two distinct categories of person that you use in your comment. On one hand we have the average western lower income person. On the other, we have a "truly poor" third world person that is either on the brink of starvation or whom a proper diet is not guaranteed. I'll tackle the latter first. To suggest that there is less food produced than is needed to eat globally is simply false. Food production has outpaced population growth. We have more food now (per person) that we have ever had in our history. So, introducing a new food to market is solving a problem that does not exist. Food security is a political problem, not a scientific one. As to the former, I'd venture that there there aren't any western adults that don't at least understand that daily McDonald's along with a sedentary lifestyle is not a healthy option. The issue here isn't access, it's personal choice. Buying fast, crappy food is not cheaper than buying wholesome raw ingredients and then taking the time to prepare them. This issue isn't addressed by introducing a powder to encourage the same behaviours that fast food supports. Personal change is just that - change. Nobody is saving the world here. What Soylent is really is nothing more than extended mental masturbation, of little utility to the masses. Don't convince yourself otherwise.
DiegoNolan 13y ago
I could and would argue that sleeping is a good use of time.
- camdykeman 13y ago
  So if starting tomorrow, you knew that your body only required you to sleep for one hour a night to maintain and repair itself instead of 7-8 you would continue sleeping 7-8 simply because you think its a good use of time? I doubt it. You might still lay around in bed on your days off, or you might stay in bed to procrastinate when faced with something to do that day, but arguing that it would still be a good use of time is extremely flawed.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Most people genuinely would like to stay in bed for 8 hours a night, even if a safe, effective, NO_SLEEP_PILL was released that allowed your body to safely get by on just an hours sleep per night. Sometimes people would chose to sleep less - crunching work, or partying, or whatever. But mostly I really think people like that time.
    - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
      I get on average about 5 hours of sleep per night. I would very much like a NO_SLEEP_PILL that made that (or even less) sleep enough for my body. I would not wish to be laying in bed for 8 hours a night if not required to function. I would be using that time to do other things. I also believe my wife is in the same mind set. I know that I'm speaking of a sample of just 1 (or 2 if you count my wife) so that isn't enough to go against your "most people" idea.

DanBC 13y ago

Personally, I think Soylent is stupid. Having said that: > With like 40% of people too damn fat for their own good, I don't get how anyone sees a positive outcome for them. So, Fat_Bob is at work. He's made the effort and had a good healthy breakfast. He knows when he goes home that him and his significant other are going to make the effort and eat a healthy dinner. But it's midday, and outside the office is a FatBurger, and opposite them is a GreasyJoes, and they both have special offers if you buy a 64ounce soda. So, Fat_Bob just slurps down a liquid nutrition drink. He knows he's got some kind of useful nutrition from it, and maybe it's enough to ease the cravings while he walks past FatBurger and GreasyJoes to get to the Carrot_Stick_Stall. At least, I think that's what they're aiming for.

zachalexander 13y ago
Exactly. "Soylent : food :: water : drinks" is the idea. Water isn't my favorite beverage, but I'm really glad I can just turn on the tap and quench my thirst, without having to buy a latte. What I don't understand is why you would call soylent "stupid" right before explaining its utility.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Some people have the personal opinion that they just can't be bothered to learn to cook and to eat nice food. I'm trying to get my head around that. It's an alien concept to me. Then there's the liquid feed nature of it. Put it in a cake and I might not be so critical of it. I am trying to make myself remember that I have strong personal opinions and that I need to wait for science before leaping to the "it's stupid" conclusion. This submission was nice because it was reasonably cautious - it has some safety advice, and warns people about the experimental nature of it. So, what people do with their bodies is mostly up to them and I don't try to stop them.
  - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
    On the flip side: Some people have the personal opinion that they eat gourmet meals, surrounded by loving friends, 3 times a day, 7 days a week. They appear to get heaps and heaps of personal pleasure out of every single meal they eat. They apparently never eat for the simple fact that they are hungry and need to eat. I'm trying to get my head around that.

satellitecat 13y ago

I don't really understand the whole objection to Soylent. 1. I don't care much about food. The smell, experience and taste. Why in god's name would I spend a bunch of time each day just to have the "joy" of eating food? I could be doing other things, like having sex (Seriously. "Too hungry for sex, let's make [time appropriate meal name]" happens a few times a month!) 2. The name is humourous, and was a good way to get attention. Could do with a re-brand, but I figure we nerdy types who would be interested in this would enjoy the somewhat sick humour of the name. To me personally, eating, and the things involved in it (grocery shopping, preparation, making and packing lunch or going out, deciding what to make, poopin', flossing, etc) are the very antithesis of the idea of living this short life I have. I just have better things to do than chew and taste stuff. If I feel like experiencing some nice food, then I can go out of my way to get it. In fact, I'd probably be more inclined to make a couple good meals per week, and would enjoy going out or ordering in more, if I wasn't having to deal with food every day. There's always someone in these Soylent threads who says, "Just learn to cook, it doesn't have to be time consuming or expensive, and you'll enjoy it!" but I just. don't. care. about food.

jack-r-abbit 13y ago

> That's like promoting adoption as a method of avoiding the "hassle" of having sex. Allow me to over share a little bit for a moment. My wife and I had trouble conceiving. So the "process" very much became a task. It was scheduled. It was monitored (not the "act" itself, pervs... LOL). It involved various shots on schedule with other things. I won't go so far to call it a "hassle" but I will tell you that even something as enjoyable as sex can be reduced to a chore if you make it one.

run4yourlives 13y ago
I appreciate what you are saying, but my point was more that having sex is a lot more than making a baby, in the same way that eating is a lot more than refueling your body.
- jack-r-abbit 13y ago
  Yes. And my point was that even really, really fun stuff can be less fun when you HAVE to do it, repeatedly, on schedule, etc.
  - run4yourlives 13y ago
    I think a vast majority of people in this world would never feel eating to be such a tedious task.
    - Blahah 13y ago
      But preparing food is.
    - jack-r-abbit 13y ago
      You are looking at things in single data points. Shopping for food is not always tedious. Cooking is not always tedious. Eating is not always tedious. Cleaning up after is not always tedious. But cooking/eating healthy actually does take a non-trivial amount of time and effort. This is one reason why fast food is so popular. Convenience. Do you think most people eat at McD's because they view that as a great meal? I don't. It is about convenience. No matter how you look at it... preparing food does take time. Maybe it doesn't need to take hours every meal, but it still takes time. Shopping, prep, cleanup... it all takes some time. So what is so wrong with trading a fast McD's burger for a fast nutrient shake? Or having a fast nutrient shake every morning instead of a bowl of cereal? People talk as if they eat some gourmet meal surrounded by friends, 3 times a day, everyday and would miss that immensely if they drank nutrient shakes. Today I had cereal for breakfast and a Subway sandwich for lunch. Both cases I ate alone. I ate those things because I needed to eat, they were near me and I viewed them as the healthier choice given the options I had in front of me. Both of those meals could easily have been replaced with a filling shake and I would not have reduced my daily food pleasure. Tonight... tonight I will eat a nice meal. And enjoy it.

zachalexander 13y ago

OP here. > I like food. The smell, experience and taste. So do I. I cooked food for a living for two years, and am planning a dinner party this weekend. > Why in god's name would I eat powder to save myself the "hassle" of eating food? That's like promoting adoption as a method of avoiding the "hassle" of having sex. That is a poor analogy. A better one is this: Imagine you were forced by biology to have sex three times a day. Personally I'm a fan of sex, but anything would get old if you were forced to do it 3x/day, every day. ("Really? Now? I have to go to work, I don't have time for this.") I love food, and soylent lets me enjoy food on my own terms.

mdip 13y ago

As others have pointed out, I think you've misunderstood the concept. This wouldn't be the first time an idea came to light that a lot of people didn't get (Twitter, anyone? ... crickets ... maybe not here). 1. I like food. Eating, on the whole, isn't a hassle. Actually, it's quite easy. I have candy bars stashed in my desk, and soda in my fridge. Unfortunately, I don't always know how my day is going to roll, so that candy bar and soda might end up being lunch. Last year I made up my own meal replacement (only for lunch) to combat this problem and stuck with it for a few months. If someone could produce a meal replacement that made me feel full, kept me off of a sugar crash, that I could consume quickly when I'm too busy to think about eating healthy and was moderately healthy. There's no way, with my lifestyle (and desire) that I'm going to stick with a strict Whole Food healthy diet, and almost anything moderately healthy is going to be an improvement over mine (and many others') diets. The sex analogy doesn't work very well because a lot of people go a long time without sex due to schedules. You can survive without sex for longer than you can without food (not to mention there's fewer "bad ways to have sex" by comparison). 2. I thought the name was funny. I'm not a marketing guy, so I couldn't tell you if the selection of that name would speak negatively to the rest of the world, but I'd admit that name was the reason I read the initial article about the product. ...Soylent is the very antithesis of the idea of living this short life I have. With like 40% of people too damn fat for their own good... I think you've just pointed out why 40% of people might actually be too damn fat for their own good. Eating junk food is enjoyable and having to maintain a healthy diet is the very antithesis of the idea of living this short life to many people. For those people, Soylent isn't really relevant.