I don't find soylent appealing, and I think ultimately you're probably mostly right, but there isn't a lot of good science supporting your position. You touch

I don't find soylent appealing, and I think ultimately you're probably mostly right, but there isn't a lot of good science supporting your position. You touch on two really big debates in nutritional scientific community: > people who eat diets very high in plant content tend to have extremely good health Key word tend, causation has been so hard to prove here because they tend to do a lot of other things as well. > I myself recovered from heart disease by eating only plant foods, plus legumes and mushrooms. I lost 70 pounds in six months. A ton of health problems also seem to resolve by simply losing weight. It's, again, really difficult pull apart the effects caused by diet content vs. diet amount. Also: > another is the greater quantity of fiber, compared to the average American diet. but Soylent is a drink. you'd get more fiber eating a hamburger. This part is actually just incorrect. Soylent has 38g of fiber per serving. I'd also add fiber can be a big negative for some people's guts. The jury is very out on fiber. It tends to be a modulator either way: having gut issues? Add some fiber! Still having gut issues? Cut out the fiber! Again, I mostly agree with what you are saying, and I think it's probably the truth. But it's important to know that the science is really conflicting, and that nutrition is really really difficult to study in a meaningful way. It's easy to look at the last 50 years of nutritional science and say "wow those guys got it so wrong," that I have to imagine we'll be continuing to do that 50 years from now as well. What is supported by the current science is calorie counting and macronutrient composition as far as energy + protein ratio. Beyond that (meal timing, micronutrient composition, carbohydrate source, carbohydrates vs. fat etc.), there is really very little concrete science. It would be great if we could fund some more studies. Regardless of what you think of Taube's theories, I think his work at NuSI is going to be some of the first good science to really look at this stuff. We'll see though.