I don't understand why you think it isn't helpful. You are suggesting that as an alternative to soylent. It is a very poor alternative, and I explained why. I wouldn't add anything, I'd toss it away and start over. You don't try to build on a base of high calorie, low nutrient food like quinoa and olive oil. You had to max out everything in that recipe, which puts you at 2400 kcal, way over what most people need. And you are still seriously lacking in half a dozen essential nutrients, and are low on omega3s. Those percentages listed are based on someone who needs to consume 2000 kcal, so you want to aim for 100% at 2000 kcal.
Most people wouldn't consider (extra virgin) olive oil or quinoa to be high calorie/low nutrient -- what percentile would you put nutrients/calorie ratio of, e.g., quinoa? That said, it's easy to reduce the caloric content of the above recipe by simply decreasing the olive oil (I increased it because I have higher caloric needs).
And, though I didnt' mention it, I typically consume the meal with capsules of fish and cod liver oil.
"Very poor" alternative? Really? What kind curve are you grading on, exactly? I would say twinkies, or meat-and-potatoes, or anything that took hours to prepare, would be "very poor" alternatives. If this is a "very poor" alternative, what is a "reasonable" alternative, then?
If you reduce the oil to a reasonable amount, you are putting the vitamin E deficiency back. If you don't come anywhere close to approaching 100% RDI of half of the known essential nutrients, then you are proposing a poor alternative to something that covers 100% of all of them. Especially when you require 20% more calories to still be massively deficient. The fact that an all twinky diet would be worse does not make your option a "potentially healthier" alternative to soylent.
