Talk:Soylent (meal replacement)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Soylent (meal replacement) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1

This article was nominated for deletion on May 26, 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

Food and drink Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saritaben.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Health claims

Health claims are a major part of this companies efforts. For example they state "The makers of Soylent claim it contains all the nutritional requirements necessary for a healthy lifestyle". Thus IMO it makes sense to discuss health effects first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being healthy by eating Soylent is one of the main goals of Rosa Labs, but since the article is about a product and how it is has changed over time, a listing its history first is prudent. Listing health claims are important but not as important as a history section. Look at another food product such as Snickers and Butterfinger. --Frmorrison (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medications are products aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with User:Doc James. Rosa Lab's products aren't marketed as confectionery bars or snack foods: they are marketed as a complete replacement for staple meals. If I came to this page looking for information about Soylent, then the health claims are what I'd want to know about first. Keri (t · c) 14:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a RfC? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stones

The only source cited makes no mention of kidney stones. In fact, the source cited clearly suggests that soy protein is better than animal protein and helped reduce kidney disease in rats. Other than this one source, this subsection is unsupported and should be removed.[1] Rklawton (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I did not read the articles in depth yet, but I did not find any specific mention of Soylent despite the article phrasing it as if Soylent itself had been found to cause kidney stones. Slaymaker1907 (talk) 01:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of the film in the lead section

An editor has repeatedly removed from the lead section any mention of a relationship between the name of this product and the food depicted in the well-known eponymous film. The same editor has insisted that the name of the product comes from the relatively obscure book on which the film was based, not the film itself. However, in every independent source that I have seen, there is some mention of the film – the relationship is obvious, and the person who named the product was clearly aware of the film and its iconic status. I think the lead section does not adequately summarize and clarify the topic of the article if it does not mention the film. The film is clearly much more well known than the book. We currently have four sources that are cited in the article that say the name comes from the film, and one that says the name comes the book (while also talking about the film). I am sure it would be easy to find many more sources that refer to the film when discussing the name of the product. In fact, I suspect there are no independent reliable sources that discuss the name of the product and do not talk about the film. I think the lead ought to say that the name alludes to the film, and should also say what "soylent" was in that film. I think it is more important (and more well-justified by independent reliable sources) to mention the film in the lead than to mention the book. Very few sources say anything about the book. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinehart himself has said in several interviews that the name is based on the book "Make Room!", not the movie. However, it looks like both references (the book and the movie) are mentioned in the proper "naming" section of the article. I personally don't really see a need to have it in the lead section as well. Cardsplayer4life 2ndverse (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The basis of the name is one of Soylent's most salient facts. It's been explained over and over in the press, by no less than Rob Rhinehart. Rhinehart has always taken pains to explain that it's not based on the movie. The basis of the name is far more central to the topic than the minutiae about when each version was introduced. I'm going to re-add it to the definition, hopefully giving it appropriate prominence. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I watched the movie and never read the book. I suspect that's true for most, if not almost all, people. Mentioning the book and not the movie is a mistake, IMO. The popular internet meme "It's made of people." came from the movie, not the book. One purpose of the trivia is to connect with the audience (Reader).Tym Whittier (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flavor and product reviews -

Do we have to include the quote from the Adrian Chen Gawker review about Soylent resembling "watered-down semen"? I was curious about trying Soylent and checked the Wikipedia page, and this quote almost turned me off of trying it. I tried it anyway and liked it fine, but I'm afraid I'll always remember the semen comparison. Given that this is supposed to be a neutral article, and that many people probably read this article before trying Soylent, could we remove the semen bit? I would rather not have had that idea planted in my head before trying it. Nsergay (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nsergay: Wikipedia articles include the most salient facts in authoritatitive coverage of the topic; see WP:BALASPS. If a fact is salient but unappetizing, we have to include it; that's neutrality. Of course, there are plenty of salient facts omitted and trivial facts included in the present version of the article, but Wikipedia is always imperfect and in need of correction. (Hint, hint.) —Ben Kovitz (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The semen comment is disgusting, serves no useful purpose, Gawker is not a reliable source and that's an opinion, and not verifiable fact. Wikipedia is not news; standards are higher for an encyclopedia, the comment about semen says more about the anonymous, no-name nobody "Adrian Chen" and what a disgusting pig they are, and what a illegitimate "news source" "Gawker" is, than it does about the topic of this Article.Tym Whittier (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Products and versions

Does "Products and versions" belong in this article? I don't think so. This is detail far beyond what is found in any food article in Wikipedia. Anybody object to removing it? Chisme (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The comparable article would be Huel, which also has a section on products, but it is an appropriately brief section, merely listing each product and a short description. The same should be true for this Soylent article. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have just made it so. The products list is still complete but without all the details, much of which was unsourced, and the parts that had citations were to primary sources. So it's no loss. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

examine.com source

[2] Benjamin (talk) 06:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "Kidney stones" section should be deleted

The Kidney stones section of this page is completely false and should be deleted. There is one citation supposedly backing the claim that Soylent is associated with kidney stone formation, and then many speculative claims such as "over-reliance on Soylent can lead to nutrient deficiencies" that go unsupported.

The linked article that is used to argue that Soylent increases the likelihood of kidney stones, et al. (2017), makes no such claim. The paper does not even mention Soylent; it is about the use of soy protein more broadly. It also does not mention kidney stones at all. There's another paper cited in the article that concerns a "soy-yoghurt-honey preparation", but that's evidently not Soylent, which is vegan.

Most egregiously, Rafieian-Kopaei et al. (2017) conclude the paper by saying that "soy protein compared with animal protein can improve functional renal [sic]" and "Soy protein is possible a valuable substitution for animal protein that we can suggest to prevent and control the CKD". That is, the article used to support the claim that Soylent causes renal problems actually says that soy protein isn't harmful and is probably even healthier than animal protein. LewenhartGlinnel (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read this "Kidney stones" section and was quite alarmed as someone who has consumed Soylent in the past. (Stating my potential biases up front.)

Because I was worried, I read the cited article and also came to the same conclusion as you. Can't believe someone looked at this research and came to the exact opposite conclusion.

I've removed this section. Gluxon (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]