I am truly sorry, but I see this as sad. People thinking of supplements healthier than whole foods, and actually claiming and defending it. First of all, what

I am truly sorry, but I see this as sad. People thinking of supplements healthier than whole foods, and actually claiming and defending it. First of all, what kind of macronutrients you need and how much, may depend on yours and your ancestors habitat. Paul Chek claims this, and says some are protein types, some are carb types. We all know some people who are more tolerable to carbohydrates. Second of all, all these values depends on 'some' research (which I am sure almost none of us read them thoroughly), and 'some' baseline 'requirements'. People claimed cholesterol was bad, some still do, and now they say no no, it is ok and good. People sad yolk is bad, now they say it is good. You get my point. This product is based on the 'realities' of today, but it is shown as a 'great' replacement, where I think 'any' replacement is not and cannot be as good as the original. I really believe Soylent may be a key to solve hunger in some very poor countries, but right now it is just being marketed as a supplement/replacement. I also did not like the marketing approach, such as >>"Soylent 2.0 frees customers from crowded lunch lines at fast food restaurants and ends feelings of mid-morning hunger after inadequate breakfasts". So this is an alternative to a fast-food, as I see it. No offense, but I would rather see true information about nutrition and eating, than a replacement for the wrongs we do. Just my 2 cents.