I'm not arguing for Soylent, but arguing that people should personally test out low-risk dietary changes and see for themselves if they help. Many argue agains

I'm not arguing for Soylent, but arguing that people should personally test out low-risk dietary changes and see for themselves if they help. Many argue against Soylent by arguing that we need some careful studies before anyone should try it. I think that is overkill for a food product like Soylent. As for how to tell if Soylent or anything else is helping you, big changes should be obvious, smaller changes would require careful quantified-self style tracking to detect. Sorry if I wasn't more clear, but by obscure test I'm referring to blood work and other harder to interpret tests. Easy to interpret tests are reaction time, weight, fast arithmetic tests for mental agility, as well as recording qualitative feelings of health quantitatively, in a consistent and rigorous manner. Edit: As for this article on the Soylent trial, my take was it had "some promising initial signs given the short duration of the trial". Hardly blind enthusiasm.