9 ms·

I tried soylent for a while and found the experience fairly unpleasant. I switched to http://www.mealsquares.com/ http://www.mealsquares.com/ instead. Warmed up

by jamii 11y ago

I tried soylent for a while and found the experience fairly unpleasant. I switched to http://www.mealsquares.com/ http://www.mealsquares.com/ instead. Warmed up, they taste like a dense brownie. The thinking detailed on their website and the level of care that clearly went into choosing a safe recipe gives me a lot more confidence than soylent did eg > First, there's nothing especially risky or unusual in MealSquares; they're made from a broad variety of ordinary, healthy whole-food ingredients like milk, rice bran, dates, etc. See our nutrition page for the full list. And unlike many commercial baked goods, MealSquares are free of artificial preservatives and flavoring agents. They also don't require mixing so they work much better as a camping/climbing food.

JohnTHaller 11y ago
Soylent is a different product from MealSquares. MealSquares likes to talk about "whole-food ingredients" but the whole point of Soylent is to get away from that and base the formula on what the body specifically needs... as opposed to what whole food ingredients happen to come close and taste decent together. Soylent is simple to make, simple to drink, and has a pretty neutral flavor. They tweak it at each new version so the issues with the early versions have been eliminated. Some people won't like that approach and will prefer a "whole food" thing instead, which is just fine.
- jamii 11y ago
  Their launch comments on hn explained why they believe that using whole foods is a lower risk way to get 'everything the body needs' to actually end up in the body - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7314183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7314183
  - raverbashing 11y ago
    "And that's the problem I see artificially constructed meal replacements running in to--if you do the best you can based on the science available, that still may not be enough." This is an excellent summary. It's not about a "fad" or being "organic" or something like it. Nutrition is a very complicated subject and while science has shone a lot of light on the subject we still don't know a lot. So sticking to the "tried and true", that is, what people have actually been eating is safer.
    - oldmanjay 11y ago
      When you don't actually know enough to make an honest assessment, then you can't come to an honest conclusion. Calling "whole food" safer is an emotional response not unlike that which make "non-GMO Himalayan sea salt" a thing people buy.
      - tormeh 11y ago
        No, we know people do fine on traditionally healthy food. We do not know whether they do fine on Soylent. My guess is that anyone 100% on Soylent will become malnutritioned either very subtly or over a long time frame. Personally, I think that's fine as the body can handle pretty fucked up diets and no one is really going to go 100% Soylent anyway. Like, I'd replace 80% of my diet with Soylent if they shipped to me and I liked the taste, but I understand why someone would be a little skeptical.
        seanflyon 11y ago
        > we know people do fine on traditionally healthy food This is a valid point to an extent, but we don't know that people do fine on a particular subset of traditionally healthy ingredients. We may discover that Soylent lacks some subtle nutrient, but we could discover the same thing with MealSquares.
        001sky 11y ago
        The body reflexes to things like mastication, salivation, etc triggered by texture and the presence of actual things in your mouth, so I think the (bias of) argument is more along the lines of reducing the variables away from normal eating. If you look at the military and other people who "starve for a living" (hikers, climbers, explorers etc), these considerations are very self-evident and at the forefront of mind. Its not clear that "wishing them away" (considerations of texture/pallatability) is backed up by any hard science. But I'd be curious to see if there are any leads in that direction.
        baddox 11y ago
        > No, we know people do fine on traditionally healthy food. We do not know whether they do fine on Soylent. But we don't really know how far along the scale between dead and in maximum possible health traditionally healthy food gets us. Short of some genuine scientific results, I see no reason to suspect that Soylent is less healthy than traditionally healthy food. It could just as easily be more healthy.
fweespeech 11y ago
http://www.mealsquares.com/nutrition-facts.html http://www.mealsquares.com/nutrition-facts.html 2000 calories of it is 130% of your daily saturated fat...and 126% of total fat. Eh. Soylent you could get away with eating it all day [theoretically]. MealSquares you need to supplement with other foods due to the fact content or you'll end up screwing your health with that much saturated fat. http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/Saturated-Fats_UCM_301110_Article.jsp http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter... Additionally: > The American Heart Association recommends aiming for a dietary pattern that achieves 5% to 6% of calories from saturated fat. That means, for example, if you need about 2,000 calories a day, no more than 120 of them should come from saturated fats. That’s about 13 grams of saturated fats a day. Its 6g per square, so you really shouldn't eat more than 2 and get the rest from other sources. At which point, its a minority of the calories you consume.
- delluminatus 11y ago
  They actually address this point specifically on their Nutrition page. I am not an expert so I have no basis for comparing your claims to theirs, but it seems like they are at least sensitive to the issue, as it were. Fats: Those worried about saturated fat content should be assured that our saturated fat (and cholesterol) content derives from healthy sources, not industrially produced fats. Milk, eggs, cocoa butter, and sunflower seeds; these are nutrient-dense and healthy sources of energy. All our sources of fat have shown numerous benefits in long term studies. Lacto-ovo vegetarians have significantly extended life spans compared to people eating normal diets, vegans, and even regular vegetarians. Dark chocolate lowers blood pressure as well as being an antioxidant and nutrient source. Sunflower seeds are a rich source of vitamin E and demonstrate anti-inflammatory properties. Most of our polyunsaturated fat derives from raw sunflower seeds. Given the very high vitamin E content of sunflower seeds, we are confident that our polyunsaturated fat is stable, not oxidized. We will be sourcing our sunflower seeds from the high oleic acid varieties to reduce polyunsaturated fat content further.
- jimrandomh 11y ago
  The right amount of saturated fat to eat is a major controversy, and I think you're promoting incorrect beliefs here.
Retric 11y ago
That's 50% more expensive than soylent, and has a significantly shorter shelf life. If you want something approaching food while backpacking etc. you may want to just go for MRE's. Also xylitol, lactase, potassium citrate, rice bran, and vegetable glycerin are not really 'whole foods' by most definitions.
- jamii 11y ago
  I tried MREs for a while - they are fine for camping but too high in sugar and salt for regular eating. They are also very bulky (two of these per day - http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/c/images/2013/05/30/298090/size0.jpg http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/c/images/2013/05/30/298090/siz...) and leave behind a lot of trash.
mrbill 11y ago
I tried out MealSquares when they were first available. Ate three of them before I ended up throwing the rest of the package in the trash. Really unappetizing and inedible, unless they've changed the recipe since then.
- zyxley 11y ago
  I got a chance to try one recently (last month), and, unfortunately, I have to echo the sentiment. The best comparison I can make to the taste and texture is something like an extremely dense and gritty version of a very dark rye bread. Despite the creators' comparisons to muffins or brownies and how people say they have too much sugar, there was no sweetness to it at all.
emmab 11y ago
I use soylent when I have appetite issues because drinking is easier than eating when I don't feel hungry.
nether 11y ago
Mealsquares is probably healthier, but it's also much more expensive at $20 for 2,000 calories, vs $9 for Soylent. They're priced like energy bars (Clif bars, probars etc.).
- rokhayakebe 11y ago
  I think it is $6 per 2000 calories. Can you redo the math?
  - Jipha 11y ago
    It's $15/2000 cal for 30 squares or $17.86 for 7 (the sample pack).
- cncool 11y ago
  It's 90 dollars for 30 squares. That's 133.33 cals/dollar, or 15 dollars / 2000 calories.

by jamii 11y ago

JohnTHaller 11y ago

Soylent is a different product from MealSquares. MealSquares likes to talk about "whole-food ingredients" but the whole point of Soylent is to get away from that and base the formula on what the body specifically needs... as opposed to what whole food ingredients happen to come close and taste decent together. Soylent is simple to make, simple to drink, and has a pretty neutral flavor. They tweak it at each new version so the issues with the early versions have been eliminated. Some people won't like that approach and will prefer a "whole food" thing instead, which is just fine.

jamii 11y ago
Their launch comments on hn explained why they believe that using whole foods is a lower risk way to get 'everything the body needs' to actually end up in the body - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7314183 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7314183
- raverbashing 11y ago
  "And that's the problem I see artificially constructed meal replacements running in to--if you do the best you can based on the science available, that still may not be enough." This is an excellent summary. It's not about a "fad" or being "organic" or something like it. Nutrition is a very complicated subject and while science has shone a lot of light on the subject we still don't know a lot. So sticking to the "tried and true", that is, what people have actually been eating is safer.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    When you don't actually know enough to make an honest assessment, then you can't come to an honest conclusion. Calling "whole food" safer is an emotional response not unlike that which make "non-GMO Himalayan sea salt" a thing people buy.
    - tormeh 11y ago
      No, we know people do fine on traditionally healthy food. We do not know whether they do fine on Soylent. My guess is that anyone 100% on Soylent will become malnutritioned either very subtly or over a long time frame. Personally, I think that's fine as the body can handle pretty fucked up diets and no one is really going to go 100% Soylent anyway. Like, I'd replace 80% of my diet with Soylent if they shipped to me and I liked the taste, but I understand why someone would be a little skeptical.
      - seanflyon 11y ago
        > we know people do fine on traditionally healthy food This is a valid point to an extent, but we don't know that people do fine on a particular subset of traditionally healthy ingredients. We may discover that Soylent lacks some subtle nutrient, but we could discover the same thing with MealSquares.
        001sky 11y ago
        The body reflexes to things like mastication, salivation, etc triggered by texture and the presence of actual things in your mouth, so I think the (bias of) argument is more along the lines of reducing the variables away from normal eating. If you look at the military and other people who "starve for a living" (hikers, climbers, explorers etc), these considerations are very self-evident and at the forefront of mind. Its not clear that "wishing them away" (considerations of texture/pallatability) is backed up by any hard science. But I'd be curious to see if there are any leads in that direction.
      - baddox 11y ago
        > No, we know people do fine on traditionally healthy food. We do not know whether they do fine on Soylent. But we don't really know how far along the scale between dead and in maximum possible health traditionally healthy food gets us. Short of some genuine scientific results, I see no reason to suspect that Soylent is less healthy than traditionally healthy food. It could just as easily be more healthy.

fweespeech 11y ago

http://www.mealsquares.com/nutrition-facts.html http://www.mealsquares.com/nutrition-facts.html 2000 calories of it is 130% of your daily saturated fat...and 126% of total fat. Eh. Soylent you could get away with eating it all day [theoretically]. MealSquares you need to supplement with other foods due to the fact content or you'll end up screwing your health with that much saturated fat. http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/Saturated-Fats_UCM_301110_Article.jsp http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter... Additionally: > The American Heart Association recommends aiming for a dietary pattern that achieves 5% to 6% of calories from saturated fat. That means, for example, if you need about 2,000 calories a day, no more than 120 of them should come from saturated fats. That’s about 13 grams of saturated fats a day. Its 6g per square, so you really shouldn't eat more than 2 and get the rest from other sources. At which point, its a minority of the calories you consume.

delluminatus 11y ago
They actually address this point specifically on their Nutrition page. I am not an expert so I have no basis for comparing your claims to theirs, but it seems like they are at least sensitive to the issue, as it were. Fats: Those worried about saturated fat content should be assured that our saturated fat (and cholesterol) content derives from healthy sources, not industrially produced fats. Milk, eggs, cocoa butter, and sunflower seeds; these are nutrient-dense and healthy sources of energy. All our sources of fat have shown numerous benefits in long term studies. Lacto-ovo vegetarians have significantly extended life spans compared to people eating normal diets, vegans, and even regular vegetarians. Dark chocolate lowers blood pressure as well as being an antioxidant and nutrient source. Sunflower seeds are a rich source of vitamin E and demonstrate anti-inflammatory properties. Most of our polyunsaturated fat derives from raw sunflower seeds. Given the very high vitamin E content of sunflower seeds, we are confident that our polyunsaturated fat is stable, not oxidized. We will be sourcing our sunflower seeds from the high oleic acid varieties to reduce polyunsaturated fat content further.
jimrandomh 11y ago
The right amount of saturated fat to eat is a major controversy, and I think you're promoting incorrect beliefs here.

Retric 11y ago

That's 50% more expensive than soylent, and has a significantly shorter shelf life. If you want something approaching food while backpacking etc. you may want to just go for MRE's. Also xylitol, lactase, potassium citrate, rice bran, and vegetable glycerin are not really 'whole foods' by most definitions.

jamii 11y ago
I tried MREs for a while - they are fine for camping but too high in sugar and salt for regular eating. They are also very bulky (two of these per day - http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/c/images/2013/05/30/298090/size0.jpg http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/c/images/2013/05/30/298090/siz...) and leave behind a lot of trash.

mrbill 11y ago

I tried out MealSquares when they were first available. Ate three of them before I ended up throwing the rest of the package in the trash. Really unappetizing and inedible, unless they've changed the recipe since then.

zyxley 11y ago
I got a chance to try one recently (last month), and, unfortunately, I have to echo the sentiment. The best comparison I can make to the taste and texture is something like an extremely dense and gritty version of a very dark rye bread. Despite the creators' comparisons to muffins or brownies and how people say they have too much sugar, there was no sweetness to it at all.

emmab 11y ago

I use soylent when I have appetite issues because drinking is easier than eating when I don't feel hungry.

nether 11y ago

Mealsquares is probably healthier, but it's also much more expensive at $20 for 2,000 calories, vs $9 for Soylent. They're priced like energy bars (Clif bars, probars etc.).

rokhayakebe 11y ago
I think it is $6 per 2000 calories. Can you redo the math?
- Jipha 11y ago
  It's $15/2000 cal for 30 squares or $17.86 for 7 (the sample pack).
cncool 11y ago
It's 90 dollars for 30 squares. That's 133.33 cals/dollar, or 15 dollars / 2000 calories.